In a significant verdict, a sessions court in Thane has brought an end to a protracted 11-year-old anti-corruption case, acquitting a traffic police constable who was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial element of a "demand" for illegal gratification, leading to the constable's exoneration.
The Court's Ruling and Key Legal Point
On Wednesday, Additional Sessions Judge DS Deshmukh cleared Vilas P Chavan, who was attached to the Kalwa traffic unit at the time, of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court delivered a clear legal principle: while the recovery of money was established, a conviction cannot stand on mere recovery alone without concrete proof that the accused demanded the bribe.
The judge emphasized that the essential ingredient of "demand" was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, which became the central reason for the acquittal.
Details of the 2014 Bribery Case
The case originated in January 2014 following an accident on the Bhiwandi bypass near Diva. A bus contracted to ferry company employees was involved in a collision, leaving seven passengers injured.
The prosecution's case alleged that Constable Vilas P Chavan demanded Rs 3,000 from the bus owner for towing the vehicle and refused to issue an official receipt. This prompted the complainant to approach the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The ACB subsequently laid a trap, and tainted currency notes were recovered from the constable.
Why the Prosecution's Case Collapsed
During the trial, the court examined seven prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, panch witnesses, and the investigating officer. Scrutiny of the evidence revealed critical flaws in the case against the constable.
The court noted that recorded conversations showed Chavan was repeatedly asking for the vehicle's documents and indicated his willingness to issue a receipt for the towing charges. Notably, during cross-examination, the panch witnesses admitted that there was no explicit demand for a bribe made by the accused.
Furthermore, the court flagged serious defects in the sanction granted to prosecute the constable. It observed that the sanctioning authority did not independently verify crucial material evidence, such as call detail records or audio evidence. This procedural lapse rendered the sanction for prosecution invalid.
The Outcome and Final Directions
With the acquittal, the court directed that the seized amount be returned to the complainant. The verdict underscores the high legal threshold required to secure a conviction under anti-corruption laws, where proving a demand is as critical as proving the acceptance or recovery of money.
The ruling brings closure to a legal battle that lasted for over a decade, highlighting the challenges in prosecuting corruption cases where direct evidence of a demand is absent.
