Mumbai: Bombay HC acquits PSI 24 years after one-year conviction in bribery case

Justice VG Bisht, on June 30, acquitted Damu Avhad, who was a police sub-inspector attached with the Yeola taluka police station in Nashik at the time of the alleged offence in March 1988

Staff Reporter Updated: Friday, July 01, 2022, 09:23 PM IST
Representative Image

Representative Image

The Bombay HC has acquitted a former policeman from bribery charges, 24 years after he was convicted and sentenced to a year in jail for the same, observing that the prosecution had failed to prove the factum of acceptance of Rs 350 bribe money.

Justice VG Bisht, on June 30, acquitted Damu Avhad, who was a police sub-inspector attached with the Yeola taluka police station in Nashik at the time of the alleged offence in March 1988. The judge noted that the mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused and that the prosecution has not proved the case against Avhad.

The HC was hearing an appeal filed by Avhad against his conviction. The special court at Nashik, on August 29, 1998, had found Avhad guilty and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 500.

The prosecution claimed that in March 1988, Avhad demanded Rs 350 from one Karbhari Madhav Aher for granting bail to his brother. Aher then filed a complaint with the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau. Following this, a trap was the laid by the ACB. Avhad was apprehended red handed while accepting money from the person. The ACB recovered Rs 350 from Avhad.

While acquitting Avhad, the court observed: “Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt in absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification.”

The court further averred that Aher was asked to pay the money in order to release his brother on bail and that the complainant drew inferences that Avhad was seeking illegal gratification.

“It was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirements of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount by the appellant (Avhad),” noted Justice Bisht adding that there was no evidence to prove that Avhad had made any specific demand of illegal gratification from the complainant.

Published on: Friday, July 01, 2022, 09:23 PM IST

RECENT STORIES