Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [July 10, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 503; (2024) 10 SCC 489; Criminal Appeal No. 2845 of 2024
Background and Facts
The case concerned allegations of corruption against Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi (AO1), a Forest Section Officer, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). In January 2003, Hasmi and a co-accused Forest Guard (AO2) visited a saw-mill in Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, operated by the complainant (PW-1). They found teakwood at the mill and allegedly threatened PW-1 with prosecution for illegal possession. The prosecution claimed that, after negotiations, Hasmi agreed to book a case against a worker (M. Ashok) instead of PW-1 and imposed a compounding fee of ₹50,000, for which a receipt was issued. Subsequently, Hasmi allegedly demanded a monthly bribe (“mamool”) of ₹5,000 from PW-1, threatening further action if not paid.
A trap was laid, and Hasmi was arrested with tainted currency. The trial court convicted both accused, but on appeal, the High Court acquitted AO2 and upheld Hasmi’s conviction. Hasmi appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by Hasmi.
The evidentiary value of the complainant’s testimony and the reliability of the trap proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence, especially the testimonies of PW-1 (complainant), PW-2, and the investigating officer (PW-10). It noted significant contradictions and embellishments in the prosecution’s narrative.
Crucially, the complainant admitted during cross-examination that, while having coffee with Hasmi, he offered the bribe money, but Hasmi refused to accept it. The complainant also admitted to handing over Hasmi’s bag (which allegedly contained the tainted notes) after Hasmi had inadvertently left it behind, raising doubts about the actual acceptance of the bribe.
The Court highlighted procedural irregularities in the trap proceedings, including the questionable role of M. Ashok (the worker who was both penalized and made a panch witness), suggesting the possibility of the case being orchestrated against Hasmi.
The Supreme Court reiterated that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction under the PC Act unless the prosecution proves both demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification by reliable evidence.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence—demand and acceptance—by credible direct or circumstantial evidence. The case was found to be full of embellishments and doubts, making it unsafe to sustain the conviction.
Conclusion and Significance
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of Hasmi, and acquitted him of all charges under the PC Act.
The judgment reinforces the principle that demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses or unreliable evidence cannot form the basis of conviction in corruption cases.
This decision strengthens safeguards against wrongful conviction under anti-corruption laws and underscores the need for robust, credible evidence in such prosecutions.
In summary: The Supreme Court acquitted Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi, holding that the prosecution failed to reliably prove demand and acceptance of a bribe, and that mere recovery of tainted money without credible evidence is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
RELATED Blog
0 comments