Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
S.B. SHUKRE, J.
The State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Ramrao Marotrao Khawale - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2006
Decided On : 18-05-2017
In an appeal against acquittal, like the present appeal, scope of interference is quite limited. When two views are reasonably possible on the basis of evidence on record, one favouring the accused and the other inclining towards the prosecution, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted and if this has been done by the trial Court, it would not be open for the Appellate Court to upset such a view, just because another view favouring the prosecution is possible and the Appellate Court thinks that such a view ought to have been taken by the trial Court.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)-Illegal gratification.-Even if voluntary acceptance of bribe by accused is important, evidence about prior demand has its own importance.
In a graft case, if voluntarily acceptance of bribe amount is important, so is the demand of bribe amount. It is well-settled law that when a trap is set for proving the charge of corruption against a public servant, evidence about prior demand has its own importance.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2)-Illegal gratification.-Since demand and acceptance of bribe by accused from complainant is not proved hence acquittal of accused justified.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2)-Illegal gratification.-Since demand and acceptance of bribe by accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt hence acquittal of accused just and proper.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2)-Illegal gratification.-When a trap is set for proving charge of corruption against public servant, evidence about prior demand of bribe has its own importance.
In a graft case, if voluntarily acceptance of bribe amount is important, so is the demand of bribe amount. It is well-settled law that when a trap is set for proving the charge of corruption against a public servant, evidence about prior demand has its own importance. The reason being that the complainant is also considered to be an interested witness or a witness who is very much interested to get his work done from a public servant at any cost and, therefore, whenever a public servant brings to the notice of such an interested witness certain official difficulties, the person interested in work may do something to tempt the public servant to bye-pass the rules by promising him some benefit, which is not a legal remuneration.
Sometime, it has also been seen that the public servant initially resists such a temptation, but later on succumbs to it. But, the important fact in such a case is that the offer to make available some benefit for doing official work voluntarily comes from the complainant without there being any demand for the same by the public servant and if the public servant, on being goaded by such an interested party, falls prey to such an offer, the law would require a more careful approach to be adopted before placing the blame entirely upon the shoulder of such a public servant and would require a stricter proof from the prosecution about, the public servant making a demand of bribe.
S.B. Shukre, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2006, passed by the Special Judge Amravati, in Special (ACB) Case No.3/1992, thereby acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. In the year 1991, the respondent was serving as a Talathi and was residing at Warud, Tq. Warud, District Amravati. He was also running his office from his residence. The complainant, Namdeo Mahadeorao Bopchi, a resident of village Rajara Bazar, Tq. Warud, District Amravati was interested in getting the land bearing Survey No.9/2, admeasuring 1½ acres mutated in his name and in the name of his brother, as the same was purchased by the complainant and his brother from their neighbour, Chhatrapati Wankhade. The land was purchased about 4 years prior to lodging of the complaint in the instant case. The complaint was lodged on 2nd May 1991. Around the same time as the purchase of the land, the complainant had approached the respondent along with one Vitthalrao Punjabrao Bahurupi with a request for taking a mutation entry in respect of the said land in revenue record in his own name and in the name of his brother. At that time, the respondent was alleged to have demanded amount of Rs. 150/- from the complainant for the said work. This demand of the respondent was fulfilled by the complainant. Later on, the complainant was told by the respondent that the mutation entry was carried out as desired by the complainant in the revenue record.
3. In the early part of April 1991, the complainant was again required to visit office of the respondent. This time, the complainant required a below poverty line certificate to be issued to him by the office of the respondent, as it was a prerequisite for obtaining subsidy for installation of Gobar Gas Plant at the premises of the complainant. On demand, the complainant paid amount of Rs. 40/- as the land revenue to the respondent. The complainant also incidentally enquired from the respondent about carrying out of mutation entry in the revenue record in respect of the land survey No.9/2 when the complainant was told by the respondent that the mutation entry was not taken in the revenue record and that some more documents were required. Again on 28.4.1991, the complainant along with one Arun Ghormade visited the office of the respondent and made him a request for taking mutation entry. The complainant had also brought with him the documents required for the purpose. The respondent, it is alleged, refused to accept those documents, also refused to take mutation entry and insisted upon the complainant paying him an amount of Rs. 250/- as bribe or illegal gratification for performing an official act. The complainant pleaded for mercy. The respondent, however, was reticent about his demand, but showed some leniency about the amount and agreed to accept amount of Rs. 150/- as illegal gratification for the said official work. The complainant was told to bring the said amount on 3.5.1991 at the residence of the respondent.
4. The complainant was displeased with the fleecing tactics adopted by the respondent. He went to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Amravati about 3 days after the fresh demand of bribe was made by the respondent i.e. on 2.5.1991 and lodged a report against the respondent. The officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Amravati decided to entrap the respondent. Necessary formalities were completed and the trap was laid on 3.5.1991. It was successful and the tainted currency notes, which comprised one currency note of Rs. 100/- denomination and one currency note of Rs. 50/- denomination were recovered from the shirt pocket of the respondent. Necessary panchanamas were drawn out. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondent.
5. The respondent was tried for the offences punishable under Sect
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
