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

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Puranik, J.
Moti Ram Jai Singh Pawar - Appellant
versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 20-A of 1982
Decided on 26.3.1985

Advocates:
Mr. S. C. Bora, Advocate - For the Appellant.
Mr. S. G. Deshmukh, A.P.P. - For the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution has to show that the amount is accepted by the accused consciously.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 161 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) - Accused sentenced to suffer 1 year's R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- on each count - Appeal against the order of conviction – Re-appreciation of evidence - Genesis of the story of demand and negotiations untrustworthy, or false - Complainant's testimony by itself not acceptable - Vital discrepancies among testimony of P.Ws. - Effect - Entire prosecution must fail - Result - Appellant set at liberty. (Paras 16, 20 to 24)

       

JUDGMENT

Puranik, J. - The appellant stands convicted for the offence under. Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count, the substantive sentences having been directed to run concurrently. The appellant Motiram was tried with another, Waman, before the trial Court for the above offences with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts leading to the present appeal may be narrated as under.

2. The appellant-original accused No. 1 and the acquitted accused Waman are both serving in the Divisional Office of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short hereinafter referred to as "M.S.E.B") at Jintoor, District Parbhani. They were working in the Bill Section of the said Office. The complainant-Satwarao runs a flour mill at village Chamani, which comes within the jurisdiction of Jintoor Sub-Division of the M.S.E.B. The said flour mill is run on electricity and he has regular electric supply from the M.S.E.B. with a separate electric supply meter at the flour mill.

3. According to the prosecution, the said Satwarao used to pay his electric bills regularly. The bills which he used to receive were of the amounts of Rs. 100 to Rs. 200 on an average. In the month of December 1980, to be precise on 15.12.1980, the complainant-Satwarao received a bill for Rs. 938/- vide Exh. 27. The complainant felt aggrieved by such an excessive amount and he was sure that there has been some mistake in the bill forwarded to him. According to the prosecution, the complainant Satwaram went to the office of the M.S.E.B. at Jintoor on 24.12.1980 and met the Assistant Engineer Shri Somani-P.W. 5 and narrated his grievance. The said Assistant Engineer, however, directed him to deposit the entire amount and also assured him that the bill would be got verified from the Meter Section and the ledger book. Apparently, the complainant was not satisfied with this answer. On the same day, he went to the Bill Section and met both the accused, i.e., appellant-Motiram and the acquitted accused Waman. According to him, he had explained him grievance to these two persons, but as both of them were busy they had asked him to come on the next day. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant went to the office on the next day and again requested the two accused for correction of the bill issued to him and for reduction of the amount. According to the complainant both the accused assured that they would be in a position to reduce the bill to an amount of Rs. 138/- only if they were paid an amount of Rs. 600/-. There was a bargain between the complainant on the one hand and the two accused on the other and, ultimately, an amount of Rs. 400/- was agreed upon by the complainant to be paid to both the accused, in consideration for which the accused persons agreed to reduce the bill to Rs. 138/-. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant had expressed that he would be in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 400/- just after the village fair was over and, at any rate, within 7 or 8 days.

4. Thereafter nothing seems to have transpired till 30th December 1980, when an application came to be filed on behalf of the complainant (Exh. 9) for extension of the stipulated time to pay the bill as originally issued. The time was extended upto 1.1.1981. On the record of the investigation papers there is one more application of the complainant at Exh. 10, but the same is undated, the said application relates to his prayer for verification of the bill. Article 3 on record is a fresh bill for Rs. 938/- issued with a due date of payment as 1.1.1981.

5. Now coming to the main part of the prosecution case. It appears that in spite of having agreed to pay an illegal gratification of Rs. 400/- to both the accused, the complainant desired to trap the two acc

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top