Bombay High Court acquits Jalgaon social welfare officer and clerk in ACB bribery case
The Bombay High Court on 27 October 2026 set aside the 2015 bribery convictions of a Jalgaon social welfare officer and a clerk, holding the ACB's case was not proved.
Key points
- The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad acquitted a former social welfare officer and a junior clerk of the Social Welfare Office, Jalgaon.
- The court on 27 October 2026 set aside their convictions of 27 August 2015 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- The court held that the demand for a bribe was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; its ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Himmat Shamrao Pawar, a former social welfare officer, and Kailas Chintaman Patil, a junior clerk, both of the Social Welfare Office, Jalgaon, have been acquitted in an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) bribery case. The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad set aside their 2015 convictions on 27 October 2026, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
What Happened
According to the judgment, a village sarpanch complained to the ACB, Jalgaon, in May 2011 that the two officials sought 5% of a Rs 2 lakh development grant sanctioned for his village, or Rs 10,000, to release the demand draft. In an ACB trap on 1 June 2011, Rs 5,000 was recovered from the clerk, the judgment records.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, convicted both on 27 August 2015 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The clerk was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000; the officer, convicted under Sections 7 and 12, got one year's simple imprisonment on each count and fines of Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000.
The High Court held that the alleged demand was directed at the officer from the start, but the trap was shifted to the clerk without a fresh check of whether the clerk had demanded money, which it said raised a doubt about the actual demand. The shadow witness did not back the complainant on the key claim that the officer told him to pay the clerk, the court found. It allowed both appeals.
These were allegations, not findings of guilt; with the convictions set aside, the two former officials are presumed innocent, and the High Court's order now governs the case.
What It Means
The court restated that a demand for a bribe is an essential ingredient of the offence and must be proved before the legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act can apply. It declined a request to order compensation against the complainant, saying the acquittal rested on unresolved doubts, not on a finding that the complaint was false.
The ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Anyone asked for a bribe by an official can report it to their state's anti-corruption bureau; Oquilia's guide to every state's helpline is at https://www.oquilia.com/report-a-bribe.
Source: High Court judgment
Sources & Citations
- High Court judgment — Bombay High Court