Officer’s Acquittal in ₹50,000 Moneylending-Licence Bribe Case Stands as Bombay HC Rejects State’s Bid to Appeal Over Unproved Demand

The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, an officer in the Deputy Registrar’s office, of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded and accepted a bribe in connection with the informant’s money-lending licence application.

The Trial Court found that the demand and related allegations were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent.

The State challenged that acquittal, arguing that the Trial Court had failed to properly assess the corroborative and trap evidence.

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was the provision under which the respondent had been charged.

In an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, the appellate court will not interfere merely because another view of the evidence may be possible; leave is not warranted where the trial court’s view is a probable one and is not perverse, manifestly illegal, or contrary to the evidence.

The prosecution must establish the alleged demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt; recovery of tainted money does not, by itself, cure deficiencies in proof of demand, as reflected in the arguments recorded and the Trial Court’s findings considered by the High Court.

The respondent cited Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC (Criminal) 631; the judgment records the citation but does not separately discuss or apply its principles.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had reasonably relied on the absence of the alleged agent, Mr. Karvande, as a witness; the failure to obtain relevant call records; and the lack of a clear account of the alleged demand in the online complaint.

It also noted omissions and delay in the complaints, the Trial Court’s assessment that the transcripts did not establish a demand by the respondent, and the absence of independent corroboration of the trap evidence.

Further, the sanctioning authority had not obtained key application and complaint documents, and evidence indicated that the respondent lacked authority to issue the licence.

In light of these findings, the High Court held that the Trial Court’s conclusion was a probable view and disclosed no basis for appellate interference.

The application for leave to appeal was rejected.