IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S. Gadkari, J.
State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Shridhar Madhavrao Murti - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2012
Decided On : 23-10-2020
Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand for illegal gratification - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-State appealed the acquittal of the respondent from charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent, a Sub-Divisional Engineer, was accused of demanding illegal gratification for passing a bill, but the trial court acquitted him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not establish the demand for illegal gratification on the crucial date. It emphasized that demand is essential to establish the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issues: The key issue was whether the respondent demanded illegal gratification, as alleged by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that demand of illegal gratification is essential to constitute offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It cited relevant Supreme Court cases to support this principle.
Final Decision: The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, stating that there was no error in law or facts. The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A S Gadkari, J. - The appellant-State has questioned correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 3rd June 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros in Special Case No.13 of 2009, acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C. Act').
2. Heard Mr. Hulke, learned A.P.P. for the appellant-State and Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, learned counsel for respondent. Perused entire record.
3. The prosecution case in brief is as under :-
(i) Shri Narendra N. Deshpande (PW-1) was proprietor of a firm namely 'Akshay Enterprizes'. He used to take work on contract basis from Telephone Company for laying down underground cables, giving new connections and also used to give vehicles on hire basis to the Company. In the year 2006, a contract was awarded to Shri Narendra Deshpande (PW-1) on the basis of his tender approved by the concerned Government department. In pursuance of the said tender, PW-1 had received a contract for laying down underground cables at Malwan. After completion of the said work, PW-1 had submitted his bill to the Malwan Sub Division. After due verification of the bill in the said Sub Division, by various Officers as per the hierarchy and procedure prescribed, the said bill was sent to Head Office at Sawantwadi where it was cleared by the Junior Engineer (Planning). It is alleged that, the said bill was thereafter sent to the respondent who was holding charge as Sub-Divisional Engineer (Planning) for his verification. The said bill was pending with the respondent for many days, and therefore PW-1 requested the respondent to pass the said bill at the earliest, as PW-1 was required to pay hand-loan taken by him from various creditors and was also to repay the loan amount to his banker. The said amount was to be repaid before 31st March, 2006.
(ii) It is the further prosecution case that, the said bill submitted by PW-1 was not cleared even by 31st March and therefore PW-1 approached the respondent in his office on 3rd April, 2006, between 2 to 3 p.m. and again requested him to clear his bill by narrating his various difficulties. As the respondent did not clear bill of PW-1 till 6th April, 2006, PW-1 again met respondent in his office, wherein the respondent told him that his bill would be cleared if he pays Rs.25,000/-. After negotiation, the said amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/- which was agreed to be paid within a period of 4 days from 6th April 2006. PW-1 was not willing to pay the said illegal gratification to the respondent and therefore he approached the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 7th April 2006 and submitted his written complaint (Exh.21).
(iii) After complying with necessary formalities including drawing of pre-trap panchanama (Exh.24), the Investigating Agency decided to lay a trap on 10th April 2006. Further legal formalities were complied and the raiding party including the panch witness Mr. Sudhir Jangale (PW-2) proceeded to the office of the respondent. When PW-1 and panch witness (PW-2) initially went to the cabin of the respondent, he was busy speaking on telephone with somebody. PW-1 and PW-2 therefore came out of the cabin and after about 10 minutes, again went to the cabin of the respondent. PW-1 enquired with the respondent as to whether he had received any fax message from Malwan office relating to his bill, to which respondent answered in negative. PW-1 thereafter requested the respondent to come with him to have cold drink and accordingly the respondent went along with PW-1 and PW-2 i.e. panch witness Mr. Jangale to the cold drink house which was situated across the road. The respondent, PW-1 and PW-2 had cold drinks at the said cold drink house. PW-1 paid Rs.60/- towards bill of the said restaurant and came out.
(iv) It is alleged that, after coming out of the cold drink house, the respondent winked his eyes thereby asking PW-1 for paymen
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.