Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 2531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Abhay M. Thipsay, J.
Dinkar Bapurao Deokar, since deceased through Legal heirs Smt. Asha Dinkar Deokar and Others - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 868 of 2005
Decided On : 01-12-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Pradeep Pimparkhede
For the Respondent-State: Ms. R.M. Gadhvi
The judgment established the importance of specific complaints or information before laying traps, the vulnerability and caution required in evaluating evidence obtained through traps, and the necessity of examining key witnesses and corroborative evidence in criminal trials.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Police Corruption - Section 7, Section 13(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legality of laying 'chance traps' and the evidence obtained through such traps. It highlighted the necessity of traps for detecting crimes and collecting evidence against corrupt public servants, but also acknowledged the vulnerability and caution required in evaluating evidence obtained through such traps. The court emphasized the principles of laying 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' traps and the need for specific complaints or information before laying a trap. It also considered the Manual of Instructions issued by the Maharashtra State Anti Corruption Bureau, which guided the propriety of laying traps. The judgment scrutinized the evidence, including the non-examination of key witnesses, and raised doubts about the guilt of the appellant, ultimately leading to the acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a policeman, was convicted of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting illegal gratification. The case involved a 'chance trap' laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau based on complaints of police corruption on the highway. The appellant was apprehended during the trap operation, and the prosecution relied on the evidence obtained through the trap.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the laying of 'chance traps' was questionable and raised doubts about the evidence obtained through such traps. It highlighted the non-examination of key witnesses, discrepancies in the evidence, and the questionable conduct of the investigating officer. The court concluded that there was a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant and acquitted him.
Issues: The issues included the legality and propriety of laying 'chance traps', the sufficiency and reliability of evidence obtained through such traps, the non-examination of key witnesses, and the conduct of the investigating officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of specific complaints or information before laying traps, the vulnerability and caution required in evaluating evidence obtained through traps, and the principles of laying 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' traps. It also highlighted the importance of examining key witnesses and the need for corroborative evidence in criminal trials.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded to the appellant's heirs and legal representatives.
Abhay M. Thipsay, J.
This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th September 2005 passed by the Special Judge (appointed under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Satara, convicting the appellant of offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C. Act’). The learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under section 7 of the P.C. Act and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.
2. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court in brief, be stated thus:-
That the appellant - a policeman - at the material time, was attached to the Highway Security Squad. He was working as a driver. The Anti Corruption Bureau, Sangli had received a number of complaints telephonically and through anonymous letters to the effect that the police Officers and policemen deputed for duty on the National Highway No. 4 as well as the local police stop the vehicles passing by the highway, threaten the drivers that they would be prosecuted and take illegal gratification from the drivers of such vehicles for not prosecuting them. The complaints were to the effect that such incidents used to take place between Tandulwadi and Karad. Because of such complaints, Mr. R.D. Chavan (PW 3) Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Sangli decided to lay a ‘chance trap’, and on 10th October 2000 called for two panchas - Chaugonda Patil (PW 1) and Shivaji Kshirsagar - clerks working under a Government Department. The panchas were instructed to remain present in the Anti Corruption Bureau office on the next day at 4.30 a.m. Accordingly, the panchas went to the ACB Office on the next day i.e. 11/10/2000 at about 4.30 a.m. The panchas were explained as to how a trap was to be laid. It was decided that the police party and the panchas would stop some truck, occupy it, take the truck driver in confidence, and then would proceed by the said truck on the highway. It was decided that if the truck would be stopped by the police, one of the panchas should remain with the driver, hear the conversation that would take place between the police and the driver; and should any policeman demand money from the truck driver, and if the truck driver would be ‘ready to pay’, the money should be given and the concerned policeman or policemen be trapped. Two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each, the numbers of which were noted in the pre-trap panchnama were given by Chavan - Dy. Superintendent of Police (PW 3) to panch Chaugonda Patil (PW 1) with instructions that the same be given to the driver for giving to the police ‘in case a demand would be made’.
3. The police party and panchas then left the Anti Corruption Bureau Office by a private vehicle. When they came near Vatha, they learnt that the highway security police were demanding money from truck drivers. The police party and panchas, therefore, stopped a truck bearing No. MP-09-KB-2271 which was proceeding from Kolhapur towards Pune. The police party and panchas introduced themselves to the truck driver - Gurubachhansing. The police party told the truck driver about the information which they had and told him that they would come with him in his truck and observe whether the police would stop the truck and demand money. The truck driver agreed for such an operation and thereafter, the police party and panchas sat in the said truck like passengers. The currency notes of Rs. 50/-, the numbers of which had been mentioned in the pre-trap panchnama were given to the said driver. When the truck came near Karad, a jeep of the Highway Security
