JOSE ANTONIO DAMACIANO LATICIA DIAS MENDES REP. BY POA ALEXANDRETA M. CRISPINA v. MAHADEO LAXMAN NAGZARKAR (DEC.) THORUHG LR'S
Acquittal Upheld: Contradictory Evidence and Omissions Undermine Bribery Case Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:14388
Decision Date: 17-12-2025
List of Laws
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Facts: A complainant, after applying for voluntary retirement (VRS), alleged that the accused, a public servant, demanded a bribe of Rs. 4,000 for facilitating his VRS, gratuity, and provident fund claims. The complainant initially expressed inability to pay but after receiving portions of his retirement benefits, the accused allegedly renewed his demand, eventually reducing it to Rs. 3,500. A trap was set by the CBI, and the accused was apprehended accepting phenolphthalein-treated currency notes.
- Procedural Posture: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appealed the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused of offenses punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Issue: Did the Trial Court err in acquitting the accused, considering the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance of a bribe?
- Holding: No, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's acquittal, dismissing the appeal.
- Reasoning: The High Court found significant contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the initial demand for the bribe and the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the money. The Court noted that the complainant's statements were inconsistent, and the prosecution failed to adequately explain why the accused's statement was not recorded immediately after being caught. The Court also highlighted that the alleged demand was made after the complainant had already received his pension and that the accused did not directly handle the complainant's VRS application. The defense's claim that the money was a repayment of a loan appeared more probable given these inconsistencies. The Court cited Neeraj Dutta Versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 regarding acceptance under Section 7 of the PC Act, but ultimately found the prosecution's case doubtful due to the testimonial inconsistencies.
🔒 For Members Only