[Prevention of Corruption Act] Person cannot be convicted for violation of ethics; offence has to be proved under Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that a person charged with corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be convicted on the basis of violation of ethics or morals but the offence of corruption has to be proved under the Act [Sayaji Dashrath Kawade vs State of Maharashtra]..Single-judge Justice Shrikant Kulkarni, therefore, acquitted a telecommunications engineer in a corruption case but also observed that corruption has been spreading like cancer in India."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," the judge observed in his order passed on August 30..The bench was seized of an appeal filed by one Sayaji Kawade (appellant) challenging his conviction under Sections 7, 13 (1) d and 13 (2) of the Act and sentence of three years in prison.The prosecution case was that the appellant was arrested after a trap was laid based on a complaint that he had demanded a bribe of ₹2,000 for installation of a PCO booth.However, the bench noted that the complainant and also the panch witness in the case had turned hostile and retracted from their original statements before the court..The bench noted that both these prime witnesses didn't speak anything about the alleged demand and also the acceptance of the bribe amount."It is clear just like day light that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the basic legal requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe as contemplated under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The prosecution story is collapsed since both the material witness have not extended any support to prove the basic legal requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant for installation of the booth," the Court said..Further referring to the rulings of the Supreme Court in various similar cases, the bench reiterated that in absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification or use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position for obtaining any valuable thing or for gaining pecuniary advantage, the said offences would not stand established. Mere possession and recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute offence, the judge added.The Court further noted that even the mandatory sanction in the present case wasn't valid as the concerned authority did not follow the due procedure.Therefore, the bench set aside the conviction orders of a special court..Senior Advocate RN Dhorde along with advocate VR Dhorde appeared for the Appellant.Additional Public Prosecutor SP Deshmukh represented the State..[Read Judgment]