Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.
Prakash Harishchandra Mandalik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2004
Decided On : 14-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Aniket Nikam, Aashish Satpute.
For the Respondent: Sharmila Kaushik.
The acceptance of money is not sufficient for convicting under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and foundational facts must be established by the prosecution before invoking presumptive evidence under Section 20 of the Act.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding and accepting bribes. The evidence showed that the complainant sought registration for a cooperative milk society and alleged that the appellant demanded money for forwarding note-sheets to the Assistant Registrar, despite the fact that the permission had already been granted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had no role or duty in the registration proceedings and that the alleged demand and acceptance of money did not constitute gratification other than legal remuneration. The court also emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant obtained any amount by corrupt or illegal means.
Issues: The key issues revolved around whether the appellant's actions constituted an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, specifically regarding the demand and acceptance of bribes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that the acceptance of money is not sufficient for convicting under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution before invoking presumptive evidence under Section 20 of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of conviction and sentence was quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.
1. This appeal is under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The learned Special Judge, (Under Prevention of Corruption Act) Pune, at Pune by judgment and order dated 30th August, 2004 convicted the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 4,000/- each.
3. Prosecution case and evidence:
In January, 2000, Shankar Narayan Kadam, (Complainant), sought registration of his proposed Shivshankar Co-operative Milk Society (Proposed). Mr. Jabale, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, was empowered to grant registration and required permissions. At the relevant time, the Complainant was a Secretary of another co-operative milk society, then was operating in the same village, where registration of proposed society was sought.
Proceedings before Mr. Jabale, Assistant Registrar, shows complainant was heard by him and concluded the hearing on 28th September, 2000. Roznama of the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar, (Ex.45) shows, on 28th February, 2001, Mr. Jabale had granted permission to proposed Shivshankar Co-operative Milk Society to collect milk from its members and open bank account. I have perused the said permission-cum-order dated 28th February, 2001. It shows, several documents were submitted by the complainant to the Assistant Registrar for grant of registration. Thus, to be stated that after 28th September, 2000, no further documents were required to be submitted by the complainant in relation to his proposal.
4. It may be stated that the appellant, a public servant was attached to the office of the Assistant Registrar. Upon perusing the relevant registration record, I could not find any submissions were ever made by the appellant-accused in the proceedings relating to registration of co-operative milk society. Rather, what appears from the evidence is that, appellant was not required to do or discharge any of his duties in respect of proceedings fled by the complainant seeking registration of his society. At-least other evidence does not suggest that.
5. Be that as it may, the evidence of the complainant shows, he was aware and knew that the Assistant Registrar had granted permission to his society on 28th February, 2001. These facts are not in dispute.
6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts, I have perused the evidence of the complainant and complaint at Exhibit 10/2. What appears from his complaint is that, on 28th February, 2001, he had been to the Office of the Assistant Registrar and met the accused, who at the relevant time was attached to the Registrar’s office. Complainant would say that when he enquired with him about the ‘permission’ for collecting the milk and for opening bank account, he was told by the accused unless he forwards note-sheet to the Assistant Registrar, permission would not be granted but he would submit note-sheets after Rs. 5,000/- were paid to him. Complainant in precise words, in his complaint stated that “HINDI” Disagreeing with the complainant, next day complainant reported this fact to the office of the Anti-Corruption. His complaint was reduced into writing on 1st March, 2001 (Exhibit 10/2). In pursuance to the complaint, pre-trap panchanama was drawn on 1st March, 2001. Two panch witnesses verified the complaint and pre-trap panchanam. Mr. Nasir Shaikh, (PW-2), Witness accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused. He would depose that in his presence, accused demanded Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant, as was decided and agreed a day before and accordingly, accused accepted Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant. No sooner than raiding party arrived and after taking personal search, governments currency note of Rs. 1,000/- was recovered from the person of the accused. Tainted notes had traces of Anthracine powder.
7. W
