Advocates:
['J M GANDHI', '', 'MISS A P GUPTA', 'FOR/P', 'APP']

1/17

apeal-342-03(J).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

342

OF 20

03

Rajesh S/o Vithalrao Patil

Aged about 25 years,

R/o Siddharth Nagar, Nagpur

... Appellant

// VERSUS //

State of Maharashtra through Anti

Corruption Bureau, Nagpur

... Respondent

Shri J.M.Gandhi, Advocate for appellant

Shri S.D.Sirpurkar, APP for the State / Respondent.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATED : 18^th OCTOBER, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

9^th May, 2003 passed by the Special Court constituted under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Nagpur in Special Case No. 7/1993,

convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (in short referred as “the Act of 1988”).

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant at the

relevant time was working as Revenue Assistant, Tax Department,

Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and the complainant Shri

Bhojraj Gokul Malode as Police Constable with Traffic Department,

Sknair

2/17

apeal-342-03(J).odt

Nagpur who lodged a complaint on 2^nd June, 1992 that, for reduction of

Tax amount of his house constructed at Sugat Nagar, Nagpur the

appellant demanded the sum of Rs.800/- towards the bribe.

3.

He further alleged that in the month of January, 1992, when

the appellant had been to his house for measurement, he met him and

enquired about the estimated tax amount and the appellant asked him to

meet at his residence on next day and on the next day, the complainant

was informed that the annual tax of his house would be of Rs.800/-.

When the complainant requested to reduce the same, amount of Rs.800/-

was said to be required.

4.

It is further alleged that the appellant has accepted Rs.100/-

towards part payment and called the complainant after 2 or 3 days. After

2-3 days when the complainant went to his house, the appellant informed

him that the tax amount was reduced to Rs.563.70 per annum and

demanded remaining amount of Rs.700/- and accepted Rs.200/- towards

second part payment. On 02.06.1992, when the complainant had been

to appellant’s house again, he demanded the balance amount of Rs.500/-

and the tax amount of Rs.563.70/-, in total Rs.1063.70/-.

5.

That, on 02.06.1992, the appellant demanded and accepted

the tax amount of Rs.563.70 and Rs.500/- for himself and thereby

committed the offence under the provisions of Act of 1988.

Sknair

3/17

apeal-342-03(J).odt

6.

I have heard Shri J.M.Gandhi, learned counsel for the

appellant and Shri S.D.Sirpurkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State.

7.

Shri Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

demand is a sine qua non to constitute the offence under the Act of

1988. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant.

8.

He submits that mere acceptance of amount and recovery of

tainted amount are not sufficient to hold that there was a demand and

acceptance of illegal gratification but cogent and cognate evidence is

required to establish it. It is submitted that in the case at hand, the trial

court has given undue weightage to the recovery of the tainted amount

from the appellant to arrive at a conclusion that the demand and

acceptance of bribe is proved.

9.

Shri Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant further argues

that no independent witness was examined to corroborate the demand

and acceptance of bribe by the applicant. It is submitted that even second

panch witness who took out the currency note from the pocket of the

accused was not examined. In support of his contention, he has placed

reliance of Shivchalappa Gurumortyappa Loni Vs. The State of

Maharashtra¹ Ram Prakash Arora Vs. The Stat