Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 351
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
M.G. GIRATKAR, J.
SHARAD BALKRUSHNA DEOTALE - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 180 of 2011
Decided on : 21-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
C.B. Dharmadhikari, Adv., I.J. Damle, Adv., Mahesh Rai, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Section 44 – Illegal and arbitrary – Anticipatory bail - From year 1999 accused started meeting In those meetings accused used to tell Sinai that land which he converted into nonagricultural was, therefore said conversion is illegal. Not only this, but accused used to tell that is journalist and would publish said fact in newspaper and would even file Public Interest Litigation accused also threatened complainant with Collector compel him to demolish the houses built on the plots already sold by - To create an atmosphere of fear, the accused went to extent of visiting the houses of the people who had constructed their houses on the plots purchased from the informant. Accused told them that Collector would demolish their houses and even took photographs of the same – Held, All witnesses were thoroughly cross examined by the side of accused - Nothing is brought on record to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence of complainant is well corroborated by other evidence - Not only accused threatened the complainant but also accepted the money in presence of witnesses and police in Hanuman temple which is a pious place for worship - Complainant agreed to give because accused threatened him to publish news in newspaper and also threatened to file - Accused not only stopped there but he filed PIL - question what interest accused had in the said land - Said land was not belonging to him or his ancestor - There are authorities who are responsible to take care of the government land. Therefore, intention of the accused is very clear to extract the money from the complainant and others. He was threatening them. Not only threatening but also filed PIL. Therefore, activities of the accused clearly show that he is a person who might have earned money by such tactics from various persons - Learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court given specific reasons as to why the accused is not entitled for any leniency - Accused threatened complainant old person aged about 72 years and extorted money by threatening him. Offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out by the prosecution. The prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt that accused was threatening to cause injury to mind and reputation of the complainant and thereby induces him to give Though complainant had given only - At time of trap he agreed to give balance amount thereafter - Learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court rightly recorded their findings - There is no perversity or illegality in judgments of both Courts below - While deciding revision provisional Court has to see whether there is any perversity or illegality - From perusal of evidence of witnesses and judgments of both Courts below it is clear that there is no perversity or illegality - Hence revision is liable to be dismissed – Appeal dismissed
M.G. Giratkar, J.
1. The present revision is against the judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha in Criminal Case No. 573 of 2000 thereby convicting the applicant (hereinafter referred as accused) for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, further to suffer SI for six months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. However, separate sentence is not awarded. The said judgment was challenged in Regular Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2010 before the Sessions Court, Wardha. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.11.2011.
2. The case of the prosecution against the applicant/accused in short is that the accused is a journalist by profession. One Sonba Bhaisare (complainant) owned Survey No. 125 of Mouza Kamathwada, Gram Panchayat Warud adjacent to Sewagram to Kharangana (Gode) road. Sonba Bhaisare wanted to demarcate the plots for sale. In the year 1994-95, he got converted the land to non-agricultural from agricultural. After such conversion, Sonba sold various plots out of the said layout at market rates to various people. Some purchasers constructed their houses on the said plots.
3. From the year 1999, accused Sharad Deotale (journalist by profession) started meeting Sonbaji regularly. In those meetings, the accused used to tell Sonbaji that the land which he converted into nonagricultural was a Bhoodan Land and, therefore, the said conversion is illegal. Not only this, but accused used to tell Sonbaji that he is journalist and would publish the said fact in newspaper and would even file Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against him. The accused also threatened complainant Sonba with pressurising the Collector compel him to demolish the houses built on the plots already sold by Sonbaji. To create an atmosphere of fear, the accused went to the extent of visiting the houses of the people who had constructed their houses on the plots purchased from the informant. Accused told them that the Collector would demolish their houses and even took photographs of the same.
4. Ultimately, the accused went to the informant's house on 27.07.2000 at about 05:00 to 05:30 p.m. Complainant Sonbaji tried to convince the accused to desist from his actions. The accused demanded Rs. 50,000/-from Sonba saying that he would stop his activities if the money would be paid to him. Initially informant was reluctant to pay the money but ultimately he agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to accused on 28.07.2000 between 01:00 and 01:30 p.m. in the Hanuman Temple on Sewagram road. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was further agreed to be paid personally by Sonbaji to the accused at 06:00 p.m. at Sewagran on the same day. The modalities regarding the payment of remaining sum of Rs. 25,000/- were to be informed by Sonbaji to the accused in their meeting in the evening on 28.07.2000.
5. Complainant Sonbaji lodged a report in the Police Station against the accused. The police has arranged a trap. The accused was called in the temple. Police has collected amount from Sonba and numbers of currency notes were noted down. In the temple, as agreed, accused came to accept money from the complainant. In the temple, Sonba had given Rs. 10,000/- to the accused. As agreed, the signal was given by Sonba to the trap party. As soon as signals were given to the police, they rushed to the temple and caught hold the accused. The currency notes were seized from the accused at temple. Thereafter, investigation started. Crime was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 385 of the Indian Penal Code. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. Charge was framed at Exh.3. The prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses. Statement of accused came to be recorded. After hearing the prosecution and
