Blog

Case Title – Sayyad Shakil Salam vs. The State of Maharashtra

Case No. – Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2019

Dated on – 14^th June, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

 

Facts of the case –

The accused, a public servant, was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe from the complainant, Dongarsingh Yadav (PW1). The complainant alleged that the accused demanded an illegal gratification, which was recorded using a digital voice recorder provided by the investigating authorities. The conversation between the complainant and the accused was subsequently transcribed and produced as evidence. The prosecution also submitted a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to authenticate the electronic evidence. The forensic analysis of the audio recording confirmed the match between the recorded voices and the accused’s specimen voice. Despite the defense’s objections to the admissibility of the electronic evidence, the trial court admitted the evidence and convicted the accused, leading to the present appeal.

 

Legal Provisions –

• Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

 

Contentions of the Appellant –

The appellant contended that the electronic evidence presented by the prosecution was inadmissible due to non-compliance with the requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant argued that the SD card used for recording the conversation was not produced alongside the Section 65B certificate, rendering the electronic evidence untrustworthy. Additionally, the appellant emphasized that the Shadow Pancha (PW2), Shantaram Yewale, did not corroborate the complainant’s testimony regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe, asserting that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. The appellant further claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt, as required under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant maintained that the mere recovery of the tainted money was insufficient to sustain a conviction without concrete evidence of demand and acceptance.

 

Contentions of the Respondent –

The respondent contended that the prosecution had duly complied with the requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by producing both the SD card and the accompanying certificate. They argued that PW6 Sachin Halmare, a duly authorized person, provided credible testimony regarding the transcription and issued the necessary hash value certificate, fulfilling all legal prerequisites for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The respondent emphasized that the complainant’s testimony (PW1) was consistent and corroborated by the electronic evidence, which clearly demonstrated the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. They contended that the circumstantial evidence, including the recorded conversation and the subsequent forensic analysis confirming the voice of the accused, substantiated the prosecution’s case. The respondent further argued that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was correctly invoked, as the evidence established both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. They maintained that the accused’s explanation was insufficient to rebut this presumption and that the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused based on the comprehensive evidence presented.

 

Court Analysis and Judgement –

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly focusing on the admissibility and reliability of the electronic evidence. It noted that the prosecution had duly complied with the requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by producing both the SD card and the certificate, thereby fulfilling the legal prerequisites for the admissibility of electronic records. The court found the testimony of PW1, the complainant, to be consistent and corroborative, particularly supported by the recorded conversation which demonstrated the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. The forensic analysis further confirmed the accused’s voice in the recorded conversation, strengthening the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was correctly invoked, as the evidence satisfactorily established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court rejected the appellant’s defense that the money was placed on his table without his knowledge, finding it insufficient to rebut the presumption of guilt. The court upheld the trial court’s conviction, concluding that the prosecution had successfully proven the elements of the offense under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the said Act beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Anurag Das