Conviction set aside as accused succeeded in establishing probable defence
[Sadashiv v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 983, dated 10-5-2018]
A criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the trial court, whereby the appellant was convicted of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, was allowed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of M.G. Giratkar, J.
The appellant, who was working in the Office of District Dairy Officer, was accused of taking bribe from the complainant, who was the Chairman of Janta Milk Dairy Society. The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), along with the complainant, laid trap and caught the appellant for taking bribe of Rs. 1000. Appellant was charged and convicted by the trial court for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The appellant challenged the said decision.
OBSERVATION OF HC
The High Court perused the record and found that no specific allegation was made that the appellant took the amount of bribe from the accused.
The panch witness did not by themselves saw the appellant taking the bribe.
The Court observed that burden of proof is not so heavy on the accused as it is on the petitioner. An accused just has to prove a probable defence. In the facts of the instant case, where evidence was not such that could prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated in the case by his senior officer. Even the complainant stated in his evidence that he filed the complaint with ACB on behest of the said senior officer.
The Court held that the appellant succeeded in putting up a probable defence that he was falsely implicated at the behest of his senior officer. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. [Sadashiv v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 983, dated 10-5-2018]