SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1331

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH
State of Maharashtra
Versus
Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1350 2009 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 211 of 2006]
Decided on : 29-07-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:Ms. Madhavi Divan, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Advocates
For the Respondents:Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocates.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 7(1) and 20-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378-Conviction for bribery charges-Acquittal by High Court-Discrepancies in depositions of prosecution witnesses-Version of complainant not inspiring confidence-Even in a case where burden is on accused, prosecution must prove foundational facts-Where it is possible to have both views, one in favour of prosecution and other in favour of accused, latter should prevail-High Court has taken into consideration legal implication of provisions of Section 20-Prosecution has failed to prove its case-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 14, 18 to 22)

       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 7(1) and 20-Illegal gratification-Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under provisions of the Act-For arriving at conclusion as to whether all ingredients of an offence, demand, acceptance and recovery of amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not Court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record in their entirety-Presumptive evidence, as laid down in Section 20 must also be taken into consideration-Before, accused is called upon to explain as to how amount in question was found in his possession, foundational facts must be established by prosecution-Even while invoking provisions of Section 20, Court is required to consider the explanation offered by accused, only on touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubts. (Para 16)

Judgement Key Points

Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside tags or similar) and your specific query or task (e.g., summarize key terms, identify clauses, answer a question), and I'll analyze it accordingly using the specified referencing format with square brackets for each reference (e.g., (!) (!) ).


Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.1. Leave granted.

2.2. The State is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 19.07.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby and whereunder a judgment of acquittal was recorded in favour of the respondent herein who was convicted by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case No. 4 of 1996 under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act").

3.3. Respondent was, at all material times, serving as a Head Constable in Police Station, Karanja in the District of Wardha. Madhukar Dhote, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, was a resident of village Taroda in the Tehsil of Karanja (Ghadge). He had lodged a report against Dhanaraj Mohod and his servant Sudhkar Borkar for allegedly allowing their cattle to graze orange plants. Sudhkar Borkars mother, however, lodged a report against the complainant that he had assaulted her son. In his capacity as a Head Constable, the respondent visited the village for making an enquiry.

4.4. Respondent informed that having regard to the complaint made by the mother of Sudhakar Borkar, he and his three brothers were to be proceeded for commission of an offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. He allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for releasing him on bail.

5.5. On or about 14.07.1995, Ramesh Dhote, brother of the complainant and his servant had taken the cow of Dhanraj Mohod to the cattle -pound as the cow had damaged the crops in the complainants field. On 31.07.1995, the respondent is said to have again demanded a sum of Rs. 1500/- for releasing Ramesh Dhote and his servant on bail in the aforementioned matter. Allegedly, a sum of Rs. 100/-and thereafter a sum of Rs. 200/- was paid to him.

6.6. The complainant thereafter on the premise that he was unwilling to pay the balance sum of Rs. 1200/- to the respondent lodged an oral report before the Anti Corruption Bureau against the respondent on or about 8.08.1995. A raid was conducted but allegedly the same was not successful. On 21.08.1995, the complainant lodged additional report stating that the respondent told that he should come to Karanja on 22.08.1995 with remaining amount of Rs. 1200/-. The entire procedure was repeated again on 22.08.1995. Complainant and one panch witness Ashok Waghade went to the police station. Respondent was not present at the police station. Then they went to his house. He is said to have again demanded the amount and asked them to come near the Veterinary hospital. Allegedly, nearabout the Veterinary Hospital, on demand of the amount of bribe by the respondent, the same was paid. He was apprehended by the raiding party. Upon obtaining sanction for the prosecution of the respondent, a case under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) was initiated against him.

7.7. Respondent entered the plea of innocence. Charges were framed against him. Ashok Waghade, panch witness No. 1, died during pendency of the said proceeding. The other panch witness Gajanan Ambatkar although was not present when the respondent purported to have made a demand of the amount of gratification, deposed to the said effect. He was declared hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. The complainant, however, examined himself as a prosecution witness and supported the prosecution case.

8.8. Respondent, on his part, examined a defence witness, Ramesh Kinkar who was an autorickshaw driver. According to the said witness, the complainant and a person accompanying him stopped his autorickshaw and the former allegedly requested the respondent to see a buffalo which was brought near the hospital in an injured condition. Respondent got down from his autorickshaw. Complainant is said to have thrust the amount in question on the left hand of the accused whereafter the raid was conducted by the official of the Anti Corruption Bureau.

.9. The learned Special Judge held the res















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top