Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rohit B. Deo, J.
Dattatraya —Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2002
Decided on 29.8.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri Prafulla S. Khubalkar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri N.B. Jawade, APP
IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand for bribe money is sine qua non to constitute an offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act and that mere recovery of the currency ipso facto would not prove the charge against the accused in the absence of irrefutable evidence to prove the demand.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 7, 13(i)(d), r/w 13(2)—Accounts officer in the office of Superintending Engineer accepted Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification from complainant-contractor for clearing his bills—Accused was caught in a trap and tainted bribe money was recovered from him—Appeal against conviction—Question whether prosecution proved ‘demand’ of illegal gratification—While walking on stairs to reach the cabin of accused, accused asked complainant whether the complainant has brought—In side cabin accused asked complainant whether the money is brought—Words attributed to accused did not decisively and conclusively prove demand for illegal gratification—Accused having demanded illegal gratification became suspect—Conviction was liable to be set aside.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Rohit B. Deo, J.—The appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2001 delivered by Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case 25/1991, by and under which, the appellant is convicted of offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/for offence under section 7 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/for offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused was working as an Accounts Officer and at the relevant time was attached to the office of Superintending Engineer, 400 K.V. Transmission Lines, Construction Circle, Nagpur. The complainant Padgilwar lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur (A.C.B.) at 10:05 hrs. on 23.07.1990. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is a contractor and two bills in respect of the work of Pandharkawada and Wani were pending with the then Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B.). The bill of work of Wani was a final bill of Rs.19,000/and odd and the bill for the Pandharkawada work was Rs.28,000/. Shri Padgilwar did some extra work for head loading in respect of location 417, Mahur and the bill for the said extra work was Rs.11,000/which was pending since last 6 to 8 months. The complainant learnt that the bill of extra work was forwarded to Nagpur Circle Office in March, 1990, and therefore, contacted the Executive Engineer one Mr. Nikhar who informed that the bill is forwarded to the Division Office, Chandrapur. The complainant contacted the Division Office, Chandrapur and learnt from the Assistant Engineer, one Mr. Kholkute that after making corrections, the bill is sent back to the Nagpur Office. The complainant then contacted the Nagpur Office in June, 1990 and was told by Mr. Nikhar that the bill was sent back to the Chandrapur again for some more corrections. The complainant contacted Mr. Kholkute again and was informed that the bill is forwarded to Circle Office at Nagpur on 27.06.1990.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant contacted the Circle Office at Nagpur on 13.07.1990 and learnt from Mr. Nikhar that the bill is forwarded to the Accounts Officer, Mr. Thaokar (accused) of the Audit Section. The complainant contacted the accused, who was not available. The complainant went to the Circle Office on 18.07.2000 and was able to meet the accused. The complainant requested the accused to audit the bill as early as possible and at that time the accused told him that besides the bill of extra item of Rs.11,000/, the audit section has received one more bill of Rs.19,000/and odd. The accused told the complainant that as and when he gets the time he would scrutinize and send the bills and that if the complainant is in a hurry he will have to bear the expenditure. It is then, that the complainant asked the accused how much expenditure he will have to incur and in response the accused demanded Rs.3000/. The complainant expressed inability to pay Rs.3000/and the accused then scaled down the demand to Rs.2500/. The complainant was not ready to pay Rs.2500/and ultimately the amount
agreed to be paid to the accused was settled at Rs.2000/-.
4. The prosecution case is that the complainant was asked by the accused to come with the amount of Rs.2000/preferably on 23.07.1990. The complainant lodged a report with the A.C.B. on 23.07.1990. The A.C.B. summoned two panch witnesses, made elaborate preparations to lay the trap, explained the standard operating protocol to the panch witnesses and gave the usual demonstration. The trap party then went to the office of the accused in Jeep along with panch 2. The complainant and the shadow panch went ahead on Scooter. The complainant and the shadow panch entered their name in the visitors
