NAVPATH Vs. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises the two factual questions for consideration :-

(2.) THE crux of the offence of corruption is that the amount of gratification must have been received by the accused as a motive or reward for committing an act in connection with his official functions. The act alleged is an a result of an agreement to perform the act on the basis of the agreed amount of payment. The act and the payment are co-relative in functions. It must be shown that there wac an understanding that the bribe was given in consideration of some official act or conduct. The accused receives the money in exchange for the act and it becomes the duty of the Court to examins as to whether the act promised was performed by the accused at the time of acceptance of the amount. If the factual matrix placed before the court with the required degree of proof that the payment could have been made for some other purpose other than the agreement pleaded by the prosecution, it is well-known that the Court has to consider the same material with a different standard of approach. The Court has to consider whether such an explanation is plausible on the basis of facts and circumstances that are brought on record or that appear on record, ultimately to find out that the material renders the existence of explanation so probable that it becomes a reasonable and probable explanation to the offer of the amount.

(3.) THE material placed on record in this appeal which comes before this Court as a challenge to the order of conviction and consequent sentences in the impugned judgment, dated November 30, 1987, of the learned Special judge, Ahmednager, in Special Case No. 1/1987 really spell out more than enough material to conclude that not only the prosecution has not been able to establish its case, the material on record shows that the appellant has offered reasonable and probable explanation, may, his explanation appears to be true and correct.