SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
K.K. SONAWANE, J.
Mahesh Ramesh Jadhav - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 2014
Decided On : 12-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Joydeep Chatterjee, Adv., V.S. Choudhary, Adv.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 374,313, and 218 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1) (d),17 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Evidence Act - Section 65-B - Caste certificate - Bribe - Illegal gratification - Complainant approached to ACB sleuth, and ventilated grievances that the proposals to get Nomadic tribes Caste Certificate of his younger brother cousin brother and sister, were submitted - After due compliance of procedural formalities, proposals were forwarded to concern Sub-Divisional Magistrates office for further process - Complainant prior to 10/12 days of complaint visited to the office for enquiry about proposal of caste certificate of his brothers and sister - He came to know that proposals are pending on table of appellant-accused - Therefore, he met with the accused/appellant and made enquiry - Accused disclosed to the complainant that, he will prepare and issue caste certificate of his brothers and sister, but he has to pay sum for his proposal of three caste certificate - After negotiation, accused/appellant agreed to accept certain sum as bribe for issuance of three caste certificates of brothers and sister of complainant - It has been alleged that in the morning hours, appellant/accused contacted with complainant on his cell phone and asked him to bring money as decided and take the caste certificate of his brother and sister - Complainant was not ready and willing to pay bribe to appellant-accused-Investigating Officer, procured presence of two panchas -Thereafter, he filed the report to concern Police Station for penal action against the accused - Whether he has to pay that much amount – Held, it is rule of law that every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by a demand or not would be covered by Section 7 of the Act of 1988 - But, if the acceptance of illegal gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988 - Obviously, both offences are separate and distinct one, though offences are shown committed during single transaction. [Emphasis is supplied on the exposition of law delineated by Honble Apex Court in the case of State represented by Inspector of Police Versus A Parthiban, (2006) 11 SCC 473 - Undisputedly, both the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) are separate and distinct offences and in view of provisions of Section 218 of Cr.P.C. it was incumbent on the part of learned trial Court to frame separate charges for distinct offence against the accused so that it would not cause any prejudice or injustice to him - In the instant matter, fortunately, that issue has not been arisen for appreciation - In addition, law does not prohibits to try or convict and punish accused for both the offences on the similar set of facts - Impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence passed by the learned Special Judge is hereby set aside and quashed - Appellant-accused is acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Bail bonds of appellant-accused are discharged - Fine amount, if any, deposited by appellant -accused be refunded to him - Rest of the order of trial Court about muddemal property is made absolute and confirmed - Appeal is disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. Sonawane, J.

1. The instant appeal calls in question the impugned judgment and order rendered by the Special Judge, Amalner, District Jalgaon, in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2012 dated 30-07-2014, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988"). The accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of fine to suffer simple imprisonment of one month as well as to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of fine to suffer simple imprisonment of one month on both counts respectively. Being dis-satisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence, the accused-appellant taking recourse of remedy under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.) preferred the present appeal to redress his grievances.

2. The factual matrix sans unnecessary details in brief is that the complainant Shri Nivrutti s/o Pralhad Khairnar resident of Deogaon, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon, on 03-01-2012, approached to the ACB sleuth, Jalgaon and ventilated the grievances that the proposals to get Nomadic tribes Caste Certificate of his younger brother Sandeep Khairnar, cousin brother and sister, namely, Swpanil Khairnar and Ku. Swati Khairnar were submitted on 23-09-2011 in 'Seth Suvida Kendra, Tahsil Office, Chopda, District Jalgaon.' After due compliance of procedural formalities, the proposals were forwarded to concern Sub-Divisional Magistrate's office Amalner for further process. The complainant Shri Nivrutti Khairnar prior to 10/12 days of the complaint visited to the office of S.D.M. Amalner for enquiry about the proposal of caste certificate of his brothers and sister. He came to know that the proposals are pending on the table of appellant-accused Mahesh Jadhav. Therefore, he met with the accused/appellant and made enquiry. The accused disclosed to the complainant that, he will prepare and issue caste certificate of his brothers and sister, but he has to pay Rs.15,000/- for his proposal of three caste certificate. After negotiation, the accused/appellant agreed to accept Rs.10,000/- as bribe for issuance of three caste certificates of brothers and sister of complainant. It has been alleged that on 02-01-2017 in the morning hours, the appellant/accused contacted with the complainant on his cell phone and asked him to bring Rs. 10,000/- as decided and take the caste certificate of his brother and sister. The complainant was not ready and willing to pay bribe to the appellant-accused. Therefore, he consulted with the ACB personnel, Jalgaon and filed the complaint. The Investigating Officer, P.I. Shri Garud procured presence of two panchas. They were appraised about the demand of bribe by the accused. The panchnama of verification of demand of bribe was drawn after visiting to the accused by complainant in presence of shadow panch. The recorded conversation of demand of bribe was transcribed in the panchnama. The IO proceeded to lay trap after arrival of accused in the office as he was not available in the office for 2/3 days. It has been contended that on 09-01-2012, the complainant once again visited to the office of ACB Jalgoan and informed that he has received the phone call of accused and he called him in the office. Accordingly, IO completed the formalities of pre-trap panchnama. Thereafter the trap was laid and appellant/accused was caught raid handed while accepting the bribe amount from the complainant. The detail post trap panchnama was drawn. IO recorded statement of appellant/accused. Thereafter, he filed the report to the concern Police Station for penal action against the accused.

3. Pursuant to FIR, Police of Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon registered the crime No. 3003 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top