Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
MANISH PITALE, J.
Namdeo S/o Bakaramji Pagare - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through its Anti Corruption Bureau, Wardha - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 618 of 2003
Decided On : 11-06-2018
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Investigation - Demand of bribe amount - It was alleged that appellant directed complainant to bring said amount in school either complainant then claimed that he visited school informing appellant that he could not manage amount whereupon appellant allegedly asked complainant to at least pay - On that day and then pay remaining amount - Complainant claimed to have paid appellant and it was agreed that amount would be paid for purpose of passing children complainant in annual examination – Held, This thus lends credence stand appellant that he had never touched bribe amount and that complainant had sought to falsely implicate him was not offering any help for ensuring that children complainant would pass in final examination - In this backdrop defense taken by appellant in his statement Section assumes significance where he had stated his version about manner in which incident occurred - If said statement of appellant is read in context evidence prosecution witnesses in present case same assumes significance - It can be said that version sought to be put forward by appellant in his defense is probable and that even tenor of evidence put forth on behalf prosecution demonstrates that it is quite possible that events unfolded in manner in which appellant has sought to explain - Trial Court has noted fact that it is solitary evidence complainant which is basis of prosecution case and yet trial Court has not properly appreciated same while convicting sentencing appellant - Serious infirmities in evidence complainant absolute lack of any other evidence to prove prosecution case has not been taken into consideration in proper perspective by trial Court while passing impugned judgment and order - This has rendered its findings erroneous and unsustainable - In view above it is evident that appellant has been able to make out case in his favor – Appeal allowed
By this appeal, the appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 30.08.2003, passed by the Special Judge (Constituted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act), Wardha (Trial Court) in Special Case No. 2 of 1997, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rupees One Thousand.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the son and daughter of complainant Shrikant Shende (PW1) were studying in a government school called Shasakiya Abhyas Shala, Wardha where the appellant (accused) was a teacher. In the year 1994-95, the daughter of the complainant had failed in the second standard and it was the case of the prosecution that the appellant had been conveying messages to the complainant repeatedly through the children to meet him. On this basis, the complainant allegedly went to the school and met the appellant when the appellant claimed that he could help the complainant and his children and in that context he demanded an amount of Rs.1,200/- for expenditure. But, the complainant stated that he could afford only Rs.600/considering his financial position. It was alleged that the appellant directed the complainant to bring the said amount in the school either on 09.04.1996 or 12.04.1996. The complainant then claimed that he visited the school on 12.04.1996 informing the appellant that he could not manage the amount of Rs. 600/-, whereupon the appellant allegedly asked the complainant to at least pay Rs.100/- on that day and then pay the remaining amount of Rs.500/- on 16.04.1996. The complainant claimed to have paid Rs.50/- to the appellant and it was agreed that the amount of Rs. 550/- would be paid on 16.04.1996 for the purpose of passing the children of the complainant in the annual examination.
3. On this basis, the complainant submitted a written complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau on 15.04.1996, on the basis of which, the Investigating Officer (PW6) laid a trap for the appellant.
4. On 16.04.1996, the complainant went along with panch no.1 (Shadow witness Mr. Kathane) to meet the appellant in the school. The complainant introduced said Mr. Kathane as the maternal uncle of his children. It was claimed that the appellant took attendance of both the classes in which the complainant’s children were studying and told the children to leave the classrooms and thereafter, he enquired with the complainant as to whether his work had been done, to which the complainant allegedly replied in the affirmative. Thereupon, the complainant handed over the bribe amount of Rs.550/to the appellant who accepted the same and kept it in the attendance register, which was then kept in a drawer of a desk in the classroom. It was then claimed that the complainant along with the said panch no.1 (Shadow witness Mr. Kathane) came out of the school building to the parking area where the complainant gave the pre-decided signal to the raiding party, upon which the Investigating Officer (PW6) immediately rushed to the spot along with panch no.2 (PW3) in order to complete the process of trapping the appellant red-handed.
5. It was claimed that the appellant told the raiding party about the fact that he had kept the bribe amount in the attendance register in the desk in one of the classrooms and then the procedure of pouring sodium carbonate solution on the hands of the complainant, the accused, the bribe amount and the register was conducted. It was claimed that the pouring of the said solution resulted in change of colour and this was sufficient material to show the complicity of the appellant. The seizure and spot panchanamas were conducted and offences were registered against the appellant under the said provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid registration of offences, investigation was undertaken and the appellant was charged for
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
