Back
1993 Supreme(Bom) 174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.F. Saldanha, J.
Chandrakant Ratilal Mehta and others... Appellants.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 263 with Cri. A. No. 270 with Cri. A. No. 271 with Cri. A. No. 275 of 1985, decided on 6-4-1993.
Advocates appeared :
S.B. Pawar, for the appellant in, Cri.A. No. 263 271 of 1985.
S.R. Parekh S.J. Thakkar, Ku. Vidya Kasle, for appellant No. 1 in, Cri.A. No. 270 of 1985.
V.S. Paradkar, for the appellant in, Cri.A. No. 275 of 1985.
B.R. Patil, A.P.P., for the respondent in, Cri.A. Nos. 263, 270, 271 275 of 1985.
The court emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of public officials and deterring corruption. It also highlighted the need for caution in accepting confession statements and the significance of corroboration in corruption cases.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a sting operation conducted by the then Home Minister of Maharashtra, Bhai Vaidya, to expose a corruption scheme involving the revocation of detention orders against four individuals in exchange for a bribe of Rs. 3 lakhs. The accused, including a senior lawyer, approached the Minister with the offer, which he initially resisted but later agreed to in order to trap the culprits. The entire operation was recorded on tape and the accused were caught red-handed during the final meeting when they brought the bribe money.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty of criminal conspiracy and offences under sections 120-B, 161, and 165-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court relied on the testimony of the Minister, the panchas (witnesses), and the police officers involved in the operation, as well as the confession statement of one of the accused. The court also considered the tape recordings of the meetings, although their audibility was poor.
Issues: The main issues in the case were the admissibility and reliability of the tape recordings, the voluntariness of the confession statement, the credibility of the Minister's testimony, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's findings and convictions. It held that the tape recordings, although of poor quality, were admissible as evidence and that the confession statement was voluntary. The court also found the Minister's testimony to be credible and corroborated by other evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution had established the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the accused were partially allowed. The court upheld their convictions under section 120-B read with sections 161 and 165-A of the IPC but set aside the separate sentences awarded under section 165-A read with section 161 of the IPC. The court sentenced the accused to imprisonment for the period already undergone and imposed fines ranging from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 25,000 on each of them.
M.F. SALDANHA, J. :---Exceptional as it may seem, this set of appeals concerns the familiar situation of an approach being made to a Minister that the law should be transgressed, the reward offered being a large sum of money. That the offer and the temptation to indulge in a corrupt practice emanates from the beneficiary of such dubious schemes, with the public official falling a prey to the incentive that is held out, is the general pattern and it is equally common place to find an ever willing response from the party in power. It is indeed unusual and in fact very rare to find a person of integrity who not only resists the attractiveness of the bribe but has the moral and physical courage to bring the culprits to book. This case represents the out of the ordinary and deals with an outstanding Home Minister of the Maharashtra Government who displayed exceptional integrity and courage and went through the exercise of having the entire gang which included a senior lawyer, trapped; and then withstood the rigours of a protracted trial and all the counter attacks on him that this was a political play to project his image as a person of high moral fibre, and who saw the operation through successfully. This case presents an object lesson and is illustrative of how a single principled individual can withstand corrupt forces and successfully bring them to book. The conduct displayed by the then Home Minister Mr. Bhai Vaidya is commendable and should serve as a pointer to all those man and women in public life who still live by principles and uphold the value system.
2. The present appeal alongwith the four companion matters viz. Criminal Appeal Nos. 270, 271 and 275 of 1985, assail the correctness of the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 12 of 1980. The accused were put on trial before the Special Court, for offences punishable under section 120-B read with sections 161 and 165-A I.P.C. as also sections 165-A read with section 161 I.P.C. The learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment as also to fine.
3. The case in question had attracted a considerable amount of public attention at the relevant time. The complainant, Mr. Bhai Vaidya was the then Minister of State for Home in the Maharashtra Government. One of his duties was to pass orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as `COFEPOSA'). By virtue of his office, the power was also vested in Mr. Vaidya to revoke such orders that had been passed. The prosecution alleges that accused No. 6 who is a resident of Pune from where Mr. Vaidya originally hails, was well-known to the complainant for several years. It is alleged that detention orders were passed against four persons who were friends/relatives of accused No. 1 and that those orders had been passed in 1975 and 1976. The warrants could not be executed as the wanted persons were in Dubai. Applications for review of those orders had been rejected and a representation in respect thereof which had been made to the Home Minister had also been not successful.
4. Digressing here slightly, it needs to be pointed out, that the prosecution had originally charge-sheeted seven persons out of whom accused No. 7 Diwanji was a Solicitor. He had made an application to the Court requesting that he should be granted pardon and examined as an approver against the remaining accused. At that stage the other accused also made similar applications and ultimately all the approver applications came to be rejected. Original accused No. 2 had died by the time the trial commenced. Original accused No. 3 who was the driver of the car had been discharged by the Court on the ground that there was no material on the basis of which he could be included in the criminal conspiracy or in any of the
