It took 14 years (and almost 22 years after the act that triggered the case) but recently, the Bombay High Court dismissed a 2003 appeal by the Maharashtra government challenging the acquittal of a head constable under the Prevention of Corruption Act in a case that had been tried in 1997.
The saga started in late 1995 in Buldana, when Rukhminibai More filed a complaint alleging that Anita Hivale had stolen her earring. Ms. Hivale’s mother had later said that there was a quarrel between her daughter and Ms. More, and the complaint had followed that. Ms. More’s complaint named Ms. Hivale, her mother, and her brother Sudhakar Hivale.
On December 12, 1995 Sakharam Jadhav, then a head constable at Buldana police station, demanded and obtained ₹400 from Mr. Hivale for not taking action against him on the basis of Ms. More’s complaint. Mr Hivale subsequently lodged a complaint to the ACB.
The notes Mr. Jadhav received were smeared with phenolphthalein powder, often used by investigating agencies to mark currency notes in similar cases to establish that they have literally been in the hands of an accused.
Mr. Jadhav did not dispute accepting the money. But in his statement — recorded by the investigating officer — he said that he took the money as a settlement between Mr. Hivale and Ms. More. A witness deposed corroborating his statement, and the sanctioning authority accepted the statement.
The High Court said, “Merely because smeared notes are found in possession with the accused, that by itself is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offences under the Section 13 (Criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 unless the prosecution successfully proves that there was a demand for illegal gratification by a public servant.”
A single bench of Justice V.M. Deshpande from the Nagpur bench held that the lower court was right in acquitting Mr. Jadhav, and merely because tainted notes were found in his possession, one should not readily jump to the conclusion that there was a demand for illegal gratification. “The view taken by the trial court is just and based on evidence on record, and there is no reason to interfere with a well-reasoned judgment.”
