.jpg)
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POCA) cannot be used as justification for conviction, according to the Bombay High Court. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant demanded and accepted a bribe. In the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in Aurangabad, the appellant held the position of Sub Divisional Engineer. Devidas Mohite, the complainant, has requested the installation of an STD/PCO booth in Aurangabad. Following a spot inspection, the appellant declined to provide a connection due to a site alteration. Anil Agrawal, a dealer in STD machines, told the complainant that he would have to spend 2000 Rs. to have an STD booth installed on the same property. The Anti-Corruption Bureau set up the trap in the appellant's office after the complaint approached them. The appellant was discovered in possession of Rs. 2000 in cash. He was found guilty in accordance with POCA Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2). Before the High Court, he contested his conviction.
In the instant case titled Sayaji Dasrath Kawade v. the State of Maharashtra, the issue raised before the Bombay High Court was:
Whether the conviction of the petitioner justified?
With regard to the issue, the court stated that the appellant did not make any specific demands of the complainant. The requirement for conviction is the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the defendant. The necessary offences are not established by the simple recovery of cash from the appellant without evidence of demand. Only once the demand of the accused is established may a presumption under Section 20 of the POCA be raised.
The court remarked that the testimony of Devidas Mohite (the complainant), Prakash Nikam (the panch witness), and Abhay Agrawal (the supplier/contractor of the STD Booth machines) is what supports the case as a whole. None of the witnesses mentioned the appellant's demand for and acceptance of bribes.
The court cited many decisions, notably M. R. Purushotham v. the State of Karnataka, in which the Apex Court determined that Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act does not apply to the simple possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand.
The court categorically stated that:
“The corruption is spreading like cancer in our great nation. The disease of the corruption has been with us since long time. The common man is facing this rampant corruption, but a person for the charges of corruption under the Act cannot be convicted on moral and ethics. When the law provides certain mandatory requirements for proving offence, no shortcut is permitted. In the result, the appeal succeeds.”
Hence, the court set aside the conviction order of the appellant and acquitted him of all charges.