Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.I.S. Cheema, J.
Ravindra s/o Girjappa Kharatmal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau, Latur - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2005
Decided On : 17-06-2016
For the Appellant : Shri S.S. Choudhari
For the Respondent: Shriu K.D. Mundhe
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13 and 19-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 197- Demand of bribe and acceptance of-Conviction.-When trial Court properly appreciated evidence on the record and concluded that prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had accepted Rs. 150 for issuing certificate, judgment and order of conviction and sentence of trial Court upheld.
Trial Court did not find the defence on this count to be probable and satisfactory. Trial Court concluded that, it did not find any material inconsistency in evidence. Trial Court discussed the evidence of Dy. S.P. PW 5 that although the certificate was made ready, it was kept by the accused with himself. The evidence of PW 4, the Sub-Divisional Engineer from the office of accused was discussed by trial Court to find that the accused was the person who was responsible for dealing with the concerned file and application dated 1.4.1997 which had been filed by the complainant. Trial Court concluded in para 22 of its judgment that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded and accepted Rs. 150/- for issuing the certificate Exh.35. In the memory test in cross-examination he stated that he did not remember from which office he had received the papers. He deposed that, on that day he could not say what was the description of the papers which he received from A.C.B. Office. Although the accused is trying to argue that the witness did not even remember the description of the papers which he received, Court finds substance in the arguments of A.P.P. that an unaccustomed Government servant working in the office of Superintending Engineer may not be familiar with the terms like the "complaint", "pre-trap panchanama", "trap panchanama" etc. and only because he could not give the description, would not mean that the witness is not reliable or that he has not examined the papers which were put up to him or that he did not apply mind. The trial Court has discussed the evidence of this witness also and found that the sanction accorded was legal and valid one. It rejected the arguments that the witness has not applied his mind to the documents. It could be held that the witness has given the sanction without examining the documents. The sanction Exh.68 records the necessary concerned details and it appears to have been duly given.
For reasons mentioned above, Court did not find any substance in the appeal. The evidence on record does establish the offence of the accused and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.
A.I.S. Cheema, J.
The appellant – original accused (hereafter referred as accused) has been convicted by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Latur in Special Case No. 4/1997 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Act in brief). Being aggrieved by the conviction as well as sentence passed, the present appeal has been filed.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows :
(a) P.W.2 Angad Vishwanath Jadhav – complainant (hereafter referred as complainant) approached Anti Corruption Bureau at Latur on 22.4.1997. He filed complaint (Exh.65), inter alia mentioning that from agricultural field Gat No. 148, part of the field standing on the name of his father had been acquired in Manjra Project and he wanted certificate of being project affected. Accordingly, he had gone to the office of Manjra Administration, Irrigation Department, Sub-Division, Latur, where the accused was working. Complainant filed application and time to time went to the concerned office and asked for the certificate. He was asked to bring copy of notice, award, C.C. form etc. He procured the said copies and submitted the same to the concerned office on 21.4.1997. Thereafter the accused told complainant to give Rs. 150/- if he wanted the project affected certificate. Complainant told the accused that he is poor student and from where he will bring the money. However, the accused told that without paying Rs. 150/- complainant would not get the said certificate. Finding no way out, complainant agreed to bring and pay Rs. 150/- on next day. As the complainant did not want to give bribe of Rs. 150/-, he was filing the complaint.
(b) The then Dy. S.P. Bhaurao Chavan (P.W.5) received the complaint of the complainant. Dy. S.P. sent letter to I.T.I., which was nearby and presence of two panchas – P.W.1 Jayant Bagare and Sudhakar Vaijawade was obtained. The complainant was introduced to the panchas and complainant informed his grievances to the panchas also and the complaint was seen by the panchas. Signatures of the panchas were also obtained on the complaint (Exh.65).
(c) It appears that, the Dy. S.P. decided to get verified if there was really demand of bribe and the complainant along with P.W.1 Jayant Bagire were sent to the office of the accused. In presence of panch P.W.1 Jayant also the accused made the concerned demand and Dy. S.P. recorded panchanama Exh.24 regarding verification of the demand. It was decided to lay a trap on the next day of 23.4.1997. Accordingly, on 23.4.1997 the panchas and the complainant and Dy. S.P. assembled at the A.C.B. office and earlier the Dy. S.P. and his staff explained the use of anthracene powder and ultra violet lamp for execution of such trap by A.C.B. Pre-trap panchanama (Exh.25) was prepared. Necessary instructions were give to the complainant and panchas and the raiding party proceeded for execution of the trap. While the complainant and panch P.W.1 proceeded to the office of the accused, the other raiding party lay in waiting. At the time of execution of the trap, the complainant P.W.2 and panch P.W.1 waited near the office of the accused and when he came out, a person was with him. Earlier, the accused asked the complainant and the panch to first come along for tea. They went and had tea, for which the complainant made the payment. When they came back to the office, the other unknown person left and when the complainant and panch went inside, the accused demanded the amount. The same was paid. The complainant gave pre-decided signal to the rest of the raiding party when accused accepted Rs. 150/- from the complainant. He was caught. Further procedure of examining hands and clothes in the light of ultra violet lamp was carried out and the necessary panchanama (Exh.61) was prepared.
(d) Dy. S.P. Bhaurao Chavan then filed complaint Exh.78 with Police Station, Shivaji Nagar, Latur and Crime No. 22/1997 was registered. The necessary investigation was carr
