IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
Dattatraya Jagannathrao Zombade - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2005
Decided On : 24-11-2020
Corruption - Caste Certificate Issue - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Senior Clerk, was convicted for demanding a bribe of Rs. 1,500 from the complainant for issuing a caste certificate. The complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, leading to a raid where the accused was found with the tainted money. The accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the complainant's testimony and lack of evidence to prove the accused's demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court also noted the absence of proper application of mind in the sanctioning of the prosecution. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. 2. Whether the decision to convict the accused required interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for meticulous scrutiny of the complainant's evidence and the requirement for corroboration in material particulars. It also highlighted the necessity for proper application of mind in sanctioning prosecution. The court ruled that mere demand and acceptance of money is not sufficient in corruption cases, and the money should be accepted as 'bribe' or 'illegal gratification' and not as fees or loan.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charges. The court ordered the refund of the fine amount and cancellation of the accused's bail bonds.
JUDGMENT
Vibha Kankanwadi, J. - Present appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction in Special Case (AC) No.8/2000 by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad on 07.10.2005, for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, "P.C. Act").
2. The present appellant i.e. original accused was the Awwal Karkun, working with Tahsil Office, Osmanabad in January, 2000.
3. Original complainant Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Kasimsaab, R/o Khirni Malla, Osmanabad lodged complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau on 03.01.2000. He contended that he is 'Takari' by caste and he wanted loan from Bank for his business purpose. He came to know that due to his caste he can get immediate loan and also some concession, and therefore, he was in need of caste certificate. He gave application to Tahsil Office for issuance of his caste certificate in August, 1998. He had attached certain documents along with his application. After some time, when he made inquiry with the Tahsil Office about his application, he came to know that the said application has been assigned to present accused. He was not knowing the designation as well as full name of the accused. But he was certain that he serves with Tahsil Office. After some days of filing that application, he had met accused and requested him to issue caste certificate. Accused asked him to come after three days. After three days he met accused. Accused told him that his application has been assigned to him but he should meet him 2-3 days thereafter. He further states that he lost the acknowledgment in respect of application filed by him in August, 1998, and therefore, he made fresh application for getting caste certificate on 15.06.1999. After the acknowledgment regarding that application was received by him, he had gone to Tahsil Office about 20 times and met accused with a request to issue the certificate, but each time he was asked to come after few days. He went to Tahsil Office on 03.01.2000 and met the accused and made again the same request. At that time, the accused told that the Tahsildar has not signed the certificate and it was told that now the work of issuing of certificate of Takari caste is closed, and therefore, it is hard for him to get such certificate. Informant again requested that he should give him that certificate as it is utmost necessary and asked the accused to find out some way. The accused told him that he will have to prepare back dated certificate. Complainant could not understand it, but then told the accused that he may do anything but he should give him the certificate. Accused then told him that he should give him amount of Rs.2,000/- and then he would issue a back dated certificate. Complainant shown him the financial disability and asked as to whether that amount of Rs.2,000/- is a Government fee. Accused told that it is not a Government fee, but then he will have to give that amount. At that time the complainant realized that accused was demanding bribe of Rs.2,000/-. After much request from the complainant that amount was lowered to Rs.1,500/-. The complainant agreed to give that amount, as no alternative was left. Accused told that if he gives that amount him on that day, then he would prepare the certificate within 2-3 days. Complainant took time from him to give that amount and accordingly accused told him to come on 04.01.2000. Accused told that the complainant should give him amount of Rs.1,000/- on the next day and remaining Rs.500/- after the certificate is received by the complainant. The complainant had no intention to give bribe, and therefore, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged the complaint.
4. After the complaint was lodged, two panchas were arranged and in their presence verification panchnama was carried out. After the verification was done it was decided to carry out raid. ACB officer explained the entire procedure, as to how the raid wo
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.