THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MARUTI BHIKAJI BORKAR AND ORS
High Court overturns acquittal in corruption case: Demand and acceptance of bribe proven against Tahsildar and Clerk; acquittal of third accused upheld due to lack of evidence.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:52260
Decision Date: 01-12-2025
List of Laws
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; General Clauses Act, 1897; The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Case Brief
- Facts: The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Maruti Bhikaji Borkar (A/1), Ramesh Dhondiba Ware (A/2), and Shrikant Sopan Gaikwad (A/3) by the Special Judge, Baramati, in a case involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A/1, a Tahsildar, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 3,000 (later reduced to Rs. 1,000) from the informant (PW/1) for clearing a file related to mutation of land records. A/2 was a clerk in the Tahsildar's office, and A/3 accepted the bribe money on behalf of A/1 during a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
- Procedural Posture: The High Court of Bombay heard the criminal appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Baramati. The High Court had previously admitted the appeal after finding a triable issue.
- Issue: Whether the judgment of acquittal by the Special Judge was justified, considering the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe, and whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal in light of the principles governing appellate review of acquittals.
- Holding: The High Court allowed the appeal in part, convicting A/1 and A/2 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced them to 6 months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each. The acquittal of A/3 was upheld.
- Reasoning: The High Court found that the Special Judge had erred in disbelieving the prosecution's evidence based on a certified copy of a log-book indicating A/1's absence from the office on the day the initial demand was made. The High Court noted that the log-book entries were not conclusive evidence of A/1's travel and that the defence failed to establish that the government vehicle was used exclusively by A/1. The Court also rejected the Special Judge's finding that there was no motive for the bribe, as the passing of the order and the acceptance of the bribe were part of a "simultaneous give and take". The Court emphasized that the prosecution had established the demand and acceptance of the bribe by A/1 and A/2 beyond reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution failed to prove the active role and knowledge of A/3 in the offence, justifying his acquittal. The Court cited Supreme Court precedents, including Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, to reiterate the principles governing appellate interference with acquittals, emphasizing that such interference is warranted when the acquittal suffers from patent perversity or misreading of evidence.