Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
Pramod - APPELLANT
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.213 OF 2003
Decided On : 09-06-2016
In this context, before discussing the further judgment of the trial Court, mention needs to be made that PW 5 admitted in cross-examination that the doctor did not appear to be left hander. If this is so, ordinarily the person would not receive the money by left hand. The case of prosecution is little job surprising where it claims that the money was received by left hand and kept in left hand pant pocket. The evidence of PW 5 shows that at the time of execution of the trap, personal search of the doctor was taken and one handkerchief, one vicks bottle, Rs. 175/- cash and thread were found in his right side pant pocket. (A small fact. Though not conclusive, but a doctor with heavy pressure of patients, if corrupt should have had better money in his pocket.) Ordinarily right handed person would receive money by his right hand and would ordinarily keep the same with the other money which he keeps in his pocket. Here it appears as if the money received by way of gratification was not to be mixed with the other articles in his pocket and so it is claimed that it was received by left hand and kept in left hand pant pocket while the legitimate lay in the other side pocket. It appears that the money had been kept by the complainant on the left hand side of the table of the accused and thus trap party appears to have claimed that the money was received by left hand and kept in left hand back pocket.
Coming back to the judgment of the trial Court, trial Court observed that the prosecution witnesses, namely panchas and Investigating Officer had stated that the currency notes were found with the accused when tested under ultra violet rays. The trial Court observed that there was no reason for the Investigating Officer to involve the accused falsely and the positive test found on the clothes of the accused goes to show that he had accepted the amount.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 197-Sanction to prosecute-Challenge to validity of.-Where from perusal of sanction order it was clear that sanction order in question was passed under the secretary in name of Governor accordance with law, no challenge to validity of sanction order to prosecute accused could be made and hence sanction order in question was held to be valid.
1. Appellant, a Medical Officer had been convicted by the Special Judge, Amalner in Special Case No.11 of 1999 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (“Act” in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.750/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. He has been further convicted of offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.750/- , and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Thus, this Appeal against conviction.
2. In short, the case of prosecution is as under :-
(A). On 28th September 1993 complainant Ramsing Walvi (PW1) approached the Dy.S.P. PW5 Prabhakar Shankar Patil in the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Dhule and filed complaint (Exhibit 12). The complainant, resident of Hisale, Tq-Shirur, raised grievance that he had taken his wife Bairabai for treatment to the Cottage Hospital at Chopda as she was complaining of stomach ache. He met the Appellant-accused at the hospital. The accused examined the wife of the complainant and told him that the uterus of the wife would have to be removed in an operation and it would require expenses. The complainant asked that it is Government Hospital and so why expenses were required. Accused said that he would properly do the treatment and operation and if complainant would go to some other doctor outside, he would have to spend Rs.5000/- . Complainant said that he is poor person and does labour work and does not have such money. Accused told him that at least Rs.1000/- should be given and he would operate wife of the complainant. Complainant told the accused that he does not have Rs.1000/- but he will bring Rs.500/- . Accused insisted that he should give Rs.800/- . Complainant told the accused that he will bring Rs.500/- somehow and remaining Rs.300/- he would give later on. Consequently, the wife of complainant was admitted in the hospital on 24th September 1993. Complainant came back to his village and told the facts to one Arjun Dada and asked him for Rs.500/- . Said Arjun told the complainant that he would arrange the money by Monday i.e. 27th September 1993. Arjun agreed to bring the money to Chopda and give it to the complainant. Accordingly complainant, on 27th September 1993, was waiting for Arjun when the accused – Dr. Choudhary asked him if he had got money and complainant told that a person would be coming with the money. Accused told him that on that day the operation would not be possible and when complainant receives money, operation will be done on Tuesday (i.e. 28th September 1993). Complainant told accused that he is waiting for the person to come and moment he comes, money would be available. Accused told complainant to give the money when there is no crowd or complainant may call him aside.
The complaint further mentioned that the said Arjun came on 27th September 1993 at about 1.00 p.m. and gave complainant Rs.500/- and at the same time told complainant that in Government Hospital money is not required to be paid and he should not pay the amount. Consequently, the complainant came to the ACB office on 28th September 1993 and was filing the complaint.
(B). Dy.S.P. Prabhakar Patil (PW5), on receipt of such complaint on 28th September 1993, sent letter to Public Works Department (PWD), Dhule and secured presence of two Panchas i.e. Dhudku Malich (PW2) and Ramrao Patil (PW4). Thereafter procedure regarding introduction, explaining the complaint and use of anthracene powder was completed. The complainant and Panchas were given guidance as to how the trap is to be executed. The amount of Rs.500/- which was with the complainant, was kept in the right pocket of the pajama of the complainant. He was instructed that when the accused accepts the currency notes, he should give signal by folding his right hand full sleeve by his left
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
