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

1983 Supreme(Bom) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
D.N. Mehta S.J. Deshpande, JJ.
Punamchand Meghaji Shikhare.... Petitioner.
Versus
Superintendent of Police others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 16-A of 1982, decided on 7-2-1983.
Advocates appeared :
Santosh C. Bora, for petitioner.
B.B. Jadhav, A.G.P., for respondents.

The court held that a person cannot be found guilty of conniving at the offence of acceptance of illegal gratification without evidence that he knew that the money was a bribe.

Headnote:

REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - CONVICTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ILLEGAL GRATIFICATION - EVIDENCE - CONNIVANCE - INTERPRETATION OF "CONNIVE" - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a police officer, was charged with conniving in the acceptance of illegal gratification by another police officer. The petitioner was present when the bribe was handed over, but there was no evidence that he knew that the money was a bribe. The petitioner was dismissed from service.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner could not be found guilty of conniving at the offence of acceptance of illegal gratification because there was no evidence that he knew that the money was a bribe. The court also held that the order of dismissal was perverse because there was no evidence to support the finding that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the amount given by the complainant to the other police officer was by way of a bribe.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner could be found guilty of conniving at the offence of acceptance of illegal gratification without evidence that he knew that the money was a bribe? 2. Whether the order of dismissal was perverse because there was no evidence to support the finding that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the amount given by the complainant to the other police officer was by way of a bribe?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner could not be found guilty of conniving at the offence of acceptance of illegal gratification because there was no evidence that he knew that the money was a bribe. The court relied on the Oxford Dictionary definition of "connive" which requires knowledge of the offence in respect of which one is conspiring. 2. The court held that the order of dismissal was perverse because there was no evidence to support the finding that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the amount given by the complainant to the other police officer was by way of a bribe.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order of dismissal and directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with back wages from the date of his suspension.

JUDGMENT - D.N. MEHTA, J.:---The petitioner herein Punamchand Meghaji Shikhare has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari with a direction to quash the order of removal of the petitioner from service passed by respondent No. 1, the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, dated 31-1-1975 as also the order passed by the under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, dated 18-12-1981.

2. The petitioner was employed as an Unarmed Head Constable and was stationed at the Police Station, Paradh. On 31-1-1972 one Shivsing Rajput lodged a complaint with the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, to the effect that Police Head Constable Shinde had demanded from him through Police Constable Dongre of Paradh Police Station illegal gratification of Rs. 15/- for himself and an amount of Rs. 50/- for Dongre as a reward for dropping the proceedings in a police cased involving the complainant Shivsing Rajput, who was found carrying 'Ganja' on a cycle and for returning the said cycle. On receipt of this complaint, the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, Registered offence against Police Constable Dongre under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, further filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhokardan, for necessary sanction as required by section 5(1) of the said Act for carrying out investigation into the said offence. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhokardan, was pleased to grant permission to the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad.

3. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer arranged to lay a trap. On 31-1-1972, the complainant Shivsing Rajput, according to the previous plan met Police Constable Dongre and handed over the amount of Rs. 65/- as per the original demand. The said sum was accepted by Police Constable Dongre and he immediately handed over the said amount to the present petitioner, Unarmed Police Head Constables Shikhare, who was present there with Dongre. The petitioner accepted the amount from Dongre and kept the same in his shirt pocket. Immediately thereafter the Anti-Corruption Bureau officials raided the place and recovered the amount of illegal gratification from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter was served with a charge-sheet by the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police Aurangabad.

4. By an order dated 31-1-1973 passed by respondent No. 1, the present petitioner and Police Constable Dongre were suspended from service pending the Departmental Enquiry against them. The petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charge which was in the following terms :---

"Perverse conduct in that you, UHC Punamchand Meghaji Shikahare, B.No. 1648 of Police Station Paradh, had kept the amount of illegal gratification i.e. Rs. 65/- accepted by Shrirang Santram Dongre, B. No. 1425, on 31-1-1972, at Paradh in your possession and thereby connived the acceptance of illegal gratification by UPC Shrirang Santram Dongre, B.No. 1425."

5. Along with the Memorandum of Charge, the petitioner was also served with a statement of allegations together with a statement of witnesses. In the said statement of allegations, it was stated that on 24-1-1972 one Shivsingh Rupchand Paradeshi was passing on a cycle by the Police Station at Paradh in a suspicious manner and was stopped by UHC Riyazuddin and others and during the course of his search, six packets of Ganja were recovered from him and hence an offence under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was registered against him. The cycle and the Muddemal were attached by the Police at the Paradh Police Station. Shivsingh Pardeshi was arrested and later released on bail. It was further alleged in the said statement of allegations that on 30-1-1972 Shivsingh went to the Paradh Police Station in order to recover his bicycle at which time

































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top