Back
1999 Supreme(Bom) 58
1999 CRI. L. J. 4407
BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AT NAGPUR)
D. D. SINHA, J.
Satish s/o Laxminarayan Nayak, Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1996
Decided on : 30-1-1999
S. V. Manohar, for Appellant; Shri Badar, A.P.P., for Respondent.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION U/S 161 IPC AND 5(1)(D) R/W 5(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - EVIDENCE OF DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE - INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION - IMPROBABILITY OF PROSECUTION CASE - DEFENCE OF ACCUSED - HELD, PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - CONVICTION SET ASIDE - APPEAL ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a stores officer in M.S.E.B., was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant, a firm's representative, for issuing a clear M.R.I. and S.R. Note in favor of the firm. The prosecution's case was based on the testimonies of the complainant, a panch witness, and the proprietor of the firm. The accused denied the allegations and claimed that the complainant had forcibly thrust the currency notes into his pocket.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence suffered from inherent improbabilities. The demand for bribe was improbable considering that the accused had already issued the M.R.I. Note and the complainant was entitled to receive 95% of the total amount of the goods. The evidence of the panch witness was unreliable as he admitted that he was not allowed to enter the accused's office along with the complainant. The proprietor of the firm's evidence was also found to be improbable as he would not have agreed to pay the bribe when he knew that the accused could not modify or change the contents of the S.R. Note. On the other hand, the defence of the accused appeared probable, considering that the firm had suffered heavy losses in earlier transactions due to deficiencies pointed out by the accused. The court also noted that the accused was seen scolding the complainant at the time of the alleged incident, which suggested that there was some protest made by the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused? 2. Whether the evidence of demand and acceptance was corroborated by independent evidence? 3. Whether the prosecution case suffered from inherent improbabilities? 4. Whether the defence of the accused was probable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The court found that the evidence of demand and acceptance was not corroborated by any independent evidence. 3. The court held that the prosecution case suffered from inherent improbabilities, such as the accused demanding a bribe for issuing a document that he had already issued, and the complainant agreeing to pay the bribe when he knew that the accused could not modify the contents of the S.R. Note. 4. The court held that the defence of the accused was probable, considering the firm's earlier losses due to deficiencies pointed out by the accused and the fact that the accused was seen scolding the complainant at the time of the alleged incident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and acquitted the accused.
JUDGMENT :- This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 18-3-1996, by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case No. 6/87 whereby the present appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant/accused is also convicted for the offence punishable u/S. 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. It will be appropriate at this stage to consider few relevant facts of the prosecution case which has resulted in prosecution of the appellant/accused for the offences charged.
3. The accused joined the service in Maha-rashtra State Electricity Board (for the sake of brevity hereinafter called as M.S.E.B.) as a Jr. Engineer in the year 1975. From 1980 till June, 1985 he was serving as a stores officer in M.S.E.B. Kamptee Stores Office. In June 1985, the accused was transferred to Wardha M.S.E.B. as stores officer. The incident in question had taken place in the year 1986 when the accused was serving as a stores officer at Wardha M.S.E.B. Office.
4. One Arvind Shaha (P.W. 3) and his son Bharatam Shaha were the partners of the Firm known as System Electric Control, Mumbai. The said Firm was dealing in electric equipments. P.W. 1 Jagdish Kothari, at the relevant time, was with the said Firm serving as a Clerk. The said Firm used to supply equipments to the M.S.E.B. on acceptance of their tenders. In the year 1984, there was a tender notice for supply of relay pannels issued by M.S.E.B. to its various offices. The Firm of P.W. 3 Arvind Shaha filled the quotation and after acceptance of the same by M.S.E.B., the order was issued to the said firm for supply of relay pannels. It was the practice to be followed while supplying the articles to the M.S.E.B. to prepare a specific drawing and get it verified from the M.S.E.B. authorities and after approval of the said drawing, the Firm used to manufacture the articles. The articles used to be inspected and after the said inspection, the Company used to supply the goods at various places as per requirement.
5. In the instant case, as per the requirement, 13 pannels were inspected by the M.S.E.B. Engineer at Bombay and those relay pannels after packing in, boxes were sent to Wardha Office in a truck by System Electric Control through P. W. 1 Jagdish Kothai on 15-6-1986.
6. It is the case of the prosecution that prior to the incident in question, in the year 1982 when the accused was serving in the Stores Office at Kamptee of M.S.E.B. Office, Jagdish Kothari had been to Kamptee Office for supplying relay pannels as per the order and at the time of issuing the Material Receipt Intimation (M.R.I.) in respect of the said pannels the accused had demanded the amount from him and, therefore, Jagdish Kothari was knowing the accused.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Jagdish Kothari (P.W. 1) left Bombay on 15-6-83 with 13 relay pannels in a truck and reached at Wardha on 17-6-86. He delivered the relay pannels in the store room. The employee present in the store room received the articles under challan. Jagdish Kothari approached Shri Nayak (accused) for getting M.R.I. in respect of the goods supplied by him to the department. At that time, the accused asked the complainant to give him the amount @2% of the price of the articles for the purpose of issuing M.R.I. The approximate cost of the articles delivered at the M.S.E.B. Wardha Office was about Rs. 2 lacs. Hence, the amount demanded by the accused comes to Rs. 1000/-. The complainant told the accused that it was excessive and, therefore, the accused ultimately red
