Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Abhay M. Thipsay, J.
Jawansingh Ramsingh Gaud - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2003
Decided On : 08-03-2016
For the Appellant : Satyavrat Joshi.
For the Respondent: V.B. Konde Deshmukh.
The non-examination of a material witness and discrepancies in witness testimony can weaken the prosecution's case, raising doubts about the truth of the matter.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Prosecution of Police Officers - Section 7, Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, a Sub-Inspector of Police and another individual, were prosecuted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant no. 1 demanded illegal gratification for returning seized passports and was caught accepting a bribe at a hotel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial demands of illegal gratification were not proved due to the non-availability of the complainant's evidence. The court also noted discrepancies in the evidence of the raiding party members and the lack of corroboration for the acceptance of the bribe.
Issues: Non-examination of the complainant, discrepancies in witness testimony, lack of corroboration for the acceptance of the bribe, and failure to examine senior officers present during the trap.
Ratio Decidendi: The non-examination of the complainant and discrepancies in witness testimony weakened the prosecution's case. The lack of corroboration for the acceptance of the bribe and failure to examine senior officers raised doubts about the truth of the matter.
Final Decision: The appellants were acquitted, and their bail bonds were discharged. The fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded to them.
Abhay M. Thipsay, J.
The appellants were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C. Act') The appellant no. 1, at the material time, was a Sub-Inspector of Police. The appellant no. 2 was not a public servant. The learned Special Judge for Greater Mumbai (appointed under section 3 of the P.C. Act) after holding a trial, convicted the appellant no. 1 of offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of the said two counts. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant no.2 of an offence punishable under section 12 of the P.C. Act read with section 7 thereof, and sentenced him to suffer RI for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences imposed upon them by the learned Special Judge, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the present Appeal.
2. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court, in brief be stated thus:-
(a) One George Williams was doing the business of Overseas Recruitment and Exports in Leather and Garments. He had his office at Chembur. He had a licence for running his aforesaid business. Reports had been lodged against the said Williams with the police alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and 506 II of the IPC read with section 114 thereof. Two criminal cases in that regard were registered against the said Williams. In the course of investigation of one of these cases, i.e. C.R.No. 792/95 which was in respect of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, 138 passports were seized by the appellant no. 1 from the said Williams. These passports, apparently, were belonging to different persons who had approached the said Williams for getting Overseas Recruitment. Williams had filed an application for return of the said passports to him which was pending before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court at Kurla. Notice of this application was given to the appellant no. 1. That, on 18th January 1996, the appellant no. 1 called the said Williams to Ghatla village Police Chowky of Chembur Police Station, and told him that unless an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to him, he would not give 'No Objection' for return of the passports seized by him. After bargaining, the appellant no.1 reduced the amount to Rs.10,000/-. Williams requested the appellant no.1 for some time to make arrangements for the payment of the said amount. The appellant no. 1, however, made it clear that if payment would not be made, he would not submit his report to the Court on 22nd January 1996 which was the date for the hearing of the application for return of the passports. The appellant no.1 did not submit his report to the Magistrate on 22nd January 1996, and the matter was then adjourned to 25th January 1996.
(b) That on 21st January 1996, at about 8.25 a.m, the appellant no. 1 contacted Williams on his pager, and demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- to be delivered at Hotel Malhar, Chembur at 10.00 p.m. Williams (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') did not want to pay that amount and lodged a report with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) at about 4.30 p.m on the same day i.e. 23rd January 1996. The said report (Exhibit- 41) was recorded by PI Anil Ghuge (PW 3), and a crime was registered against the appellant no.1.
(c) PI Ghuge then issued a requisition letter to Director, BDD Chawl, Worli, for sending two members of his staff to act as panchas. In response, Navnath Pelnekar (PW 1) and one Shri Mahadik were sent to the ACB office to act as panchas. After following usual procedure, and by using Anthracin powder, a trap was laid. Panch Pelnekar (PW 1) was to accompany the complainant to Hotel Malhar, remain with the complainant throughout and was to liste
