Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.M. BADAR, J.
Gulabdastagir Ramzan Inamdar & Anr. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 2015
Decided On : 15-06-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Pawan Mali
For the Respondent: Mr. A.R. Kapadnis
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A- Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13 – Punishment - Payment of fine – Investigation - Two appellants convicted accused by this appeal are challenging judgment and order passed by Special Judge Anti Corruption Bureau Special Case - By said judgment and order appellant accused - Came to be convicted of offences punishable under Sections read with Prevention of Corruption Act hereinafter referred sake of brevity – Held, This flawed approach of prosecution does not allow me to hold that prosecution has duly proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by appellants accused persons - As demand itself is not established by clear and cogent evidence by prosecution even though tainted currency notes were allegedly recovered from appellant accused –Police Niacin cannot be said that prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to appellants accused persons for offences with which they were charged - For invoking provisions of Section Act court is required to consider explanation offered by accused and in case in hand such burden has been discharged by appellants accused persons by preponderance of probabilities - Demand of illegal gratification precedes acceptance of illegal gratification and when demand itself is not proved then offence criminal misconduct cannot be held to be proved - In light of foregoing discussion court unable to endorse view taken by trial court and reasons recorded by it for convicting both appellants accused persons - Findings given and conviction appellants accused persons recorded by trial court cannot be sustained in wake of evidence adduced by prosecution - Prosecution has utterly failed to prove guilt appellants accused persons in respect of charge leveled against them – Appeal allowed
1. This appeal is taken up for final hearing in view of the order dated 7th May 2018 of the Honourable Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3758 of 2018 filed by appellants/accused.
2. Two appellants/convicted accused, by this appeal, are challenging the judgment and order dated 24th July 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune, in Special Case No.32 of 2014. By the said judgment and order, appellant/accused no.1 Gulabdastagir R. Inamdar came to be convicted of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act, 1988, for the sake of brevity). For the offence punishable under Section 7 of the said Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, apart from imposition of fine of Rs.3,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Appellant/accused no.2 Sunil P. Pokale came to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, apart from payment of fine of Rs.3,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Appellant/accused no.1 G.R. Inamdar, at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Police Inspector, whereas appellant/accused no.2 S.P. Pokale was working as Police Naik with the Alankar Police Outpost falling under jurisdiction of Police Station Kothrud.
3. Facts leading to the prosecution of appellants/accused persons can be summarized thus :
(a) Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune, on 22nd August 2013 and lodged the complaint Exhibit 7 against appellant/accused no.1 G.R. Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector. Complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke in his complaint Exhibit 7 made the following allegations :-
(i) In November 2011, he (Santosh Bhelke) married Samiksha Borile, who was resident of the same Housing society, located at Survey No.87, Azad Nagar, Kothrud, Pune. On 23rd May 2013 there was dispute between the couple over domestic issue. Two policemen then came to their house and called them to Alankar Police Outpost. Therefore, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke and his mother, so also Samiksha and her parents attended Alankar Police Outpost and met appellant/accused no.1 G.R. Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector and his staff. They were served with notice under Section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Two or three days thereafter, appellant/accused no.1 G.R. Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, contacted complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke from his cell phone and told him to come to Alankar Police Outpost. When complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke attended Alankar Police Outpost, appellant/accused no.1 G.R. Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, demanded Rs.50,000/- from him by threatening that he (G.R. Inamdar) had not obtained the First Information Report (FIR) from Samiksha, but now also he can obtain the FIR. Under this threat, complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to appellant/accused no.1 G.R. Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector.
(ii) It is further averred in the complaint Exhibit 7 by complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke that 2¼ months thereafter, appellant/accused no.1 G.R. Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, called him and informed him that Samiksha had lodged complaint and what is to be done in the matter. When complainant/PW1 Santosh Bhelke showed his willingness to cohabit with Samiksha, appellant/accused no.1 G.R. Inamdar, Assistant Police Inspector, said that he will conciliate and settle the matrimonial dispute and accordingly made efforts on two or three occasions to settle the matrimonial dispute. Complainant/PW1 San
