Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1402 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Balchandra Ramdas Jain

2012-07-30

A.P.BHANGALE

body2012
Judgment : This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 24th April, 2000 passed by learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Special Case No. 4 of 1988, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948. 2. Heard submissions at the bar. 3. In brief, the prosecution case is as under: On 01/12/1980, complainant Madhukar Janardan Misal had lodged complaint (Exh.42) with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Buldhana alleging that while he was driving tractor No. MTR 5870 with trolley No. MHV 9370 towards Buldhana, he was accosted between Maroda and Sundarkhed by R.T.O. Officer, Buldhana. There was one driver and two officers sitting in the rear side of R.T.O. Vehicle. One amongst them was Shri. Jain (respondent-accused). The accused demanded documents of tractor, driving license of the complainant and also questioned as to why he carried excess passengers in the tractor than permitted. It is alleged that respondent-accused had made a demand in the sum of Rs. 200/-to the complainant, but complainant had no money and, therefore, he had promised to the accused that he would bring the amount within 15-20 minutes. Signature of the complainant was obtained by accused in the memo and he was asked to come on 01/12/1986 with demanded sum of Rs. 200/-. According to complainant, threat was given by accused to impose fine of Rs. 1800/-, therefore, complaint was lodged with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Buldhana regarding demand of money from the accused for Rs. 200/-and raid was planned by drawing a panchanama. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant was instructed to meet the accused, pay the demanded sum of Rs. 200/-and give a signal to raiding party. Accordingly, on that day, the complainant and pancha No. 1 entered into the office of R.T.O. at about 13:35 hours and at about 14:00 hours, signal was given to the raiding party and raid was conducted and panchanama was accordingly drawn regarding three currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 50/-. On that day, the accused was searched and found in his possession sum of Rs. 501/-and some other articles, which were returned to the accused. The diary of the accused was also seized. 50/-. On that day, the accused was searched and found in his possession sum of Rs. 501/-and some other articles, which were returned to the accused. The diary of the accused was also seized. It is further case of the prosecution that Vitthal Namdevrao Zamare, the Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged report (Exh. 112) with the Police Station, Buldhana for offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948, which was registered as Crime No. 296 of 1986. The papers of investigation were sent for sanction of the prosecution and Shri. S. K. Sagane, Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai granted sanction order (Exh. 120). Charge was framed by learned Special Judge, Buldhana (Exh. 25). The respondent had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. From the additional statement given by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defence of the accused is; on 24/11/1986, the complainant was called to show his driving license and documents of tractor such as road permit, fitness certificate, insurance certificate policy but the complainant did not possess all these documents and, therefore, memo was issued to the complainant. The complainant had requested the respondent-accused not to prosecute him and expressed willingness to compound the offence by paying Rs. 200/-. The complainant had taken sometime to bring amount of Rs. 200/-and was called by the accused at the office of R.T.O. 4. Learned APP for the appellant-State argued that sum of Rs. 150/-was received as bribe while sum of Rs. 50/-was recovered as fine amount by the respondent-accused and the prosecution had examined nine witnesses to prove its case. According to learned APP, demand as well as acceptance of the amount was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent-accused, on the other hand, did not dispute about the sanction order issued for prosecuting the accused, but contended that the amount of Rs. 200/-was never received as a gratification. Learned Advocate for the respondent-accused invited my attention to the impugned judgment and order and particularly para 18 thereof, wherein learned trial Judge made observations about the evidence of Mahadeo Bagade (PW5) Madhukar Misal (PW2) and Damodhar Yeskar (PW3) that the accused himself went to bring the receipt of the fine of Rs. 200/-was never received as a gratification. Learned Advocate for the respondent-accused invited my attention to the impugned judgment and order and particularly para 18 thereof, wherein learned trial Judge made observations about the evidence of Mahadeo Bagade (PW5) Madhukar Misal (PW2) and Damodhar Yeskar (PW3) that the accused himself went to bring the receipt of the fine of Rs. 50/-after Madhukar Misal demanded the receipt to the accused as the evidence of Mahadeo Bagade shows that Mr. Kewat, the driver in the flying squad, had brought eight memos from Mr. Jain (accused) and then accused issued receipt from the receipt book (Article No. 4). The receipt No. 196815 is in respect of vehicle bearing No. MHV 9370/MTR 5870 namely; tractor and trolley. Learned trial Judge found evidence of Mahadeo Bagade (PW5) as contrary to the evidence of complainant Madhukar Misal and Damodhar Yeskar. The prosecution had examined one Vinayakappa Sonajiappa Kalchide (PW8), who was working as Inspector in the office of R.T.O., Buldhana. He has specifically deposed that he had passed the order to recover the fine amount. According to P.W.8 – Vinayakappa, if any amount is recovered including the fine amount by way of composition, then it is to be recovered while issuing no objection certificate. It is pertinent to note that Vinayakappa Kalchide (PW8) was Inspector in the office of R.T.O., and he had fully supported the defence of the accused that he wanted to impose fine against the owner of the tractor and trolley for contravention of provision of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, therefore, it cannot be said with full confidence that the excess amount of Rs. 150/-found with accused-Shri. Jain, was accepted by him as illegal gratification. Learned trial Judge found that the evidence produced by the prosecution itself came to the rescue of the defence giving rise to the inference that the accused could not issue the receipt for Rs. 150/-because the owner of the tractor and trolley did not approach the accused in time. It was also observed that the Inspector can recover the fine amount till the documents go to the prosecution wing in the office of R.T.O. It is not objectionable or improper if the Inspector accepted such amount in office. Thus, evidence produced by the prosecution created reasonable doubt as to whether accused had really received the amount as a bribe or illegal gratification. Thus, evidence produced by the prosecution created reasonable doubt as to whether accused had really received the amount as a bribe or illegal gratification. Under these circumstances, learned trial Judge made reference to the ruling in the case of ChimanKeshavdas Bhatiya vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. 913 to explain the legal position and whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt particularly when defence put up by the accused is reasonable and probable. Learned trial Judge applied the ruling in the facts and circumstances of the present case giving benefit of doubt to the accused. In view of evidence of Vinayakappa (PW8), he is not disowned by the prosecution. Vinayakappa(PW8) also clearly stated in his examination-inchief, which is as follows: “If the tax is due on the vehicle owner and if that vehicle owner wants to transfer that vehicle then he can not transfer that vehicle unless he pays the tax dues. The owner paid the fine amount on 30/12/94.” Considering this clear statement made by Vinayakappa (PW8) in his examination-in-chief and admissions given during the course of his cross-examination that when vehicle is challaned, its entry is to be taken in the register. The entry (Exh. 58) in respect of the amount was directed to be collected. The amount of Rs. 150/-recovered by him was in respect of checking memo No. 248744, dated 24/11/1986. This amount was remained to be recovered and checking memo dated 24/11/1986 was issued by respondent-accused. It is also admitted that the Government gives target to every Inspector in respect of recovery and that Inspector tries to achieve that target. Thus, looking into these admissions, learned trial Judge gave benefit of reasonable doubt to the respondent-accused in respect of the acceptance of amount of Rs. 150/-, which according to prosecution, was allegedly paid as a bribe. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the view of the learned trial Judge was reasonable and probable for giving benefit of doubt to the accused. The High Court does not interfere with the Judgment and order of acquittal unless the view of the trial Court is unreasonable or contrary to law. The trial Court in the present case appears to have considered the relevant material to reach a conclusion of the acquittal and there are no any compelling or substantial grounds to upset the impugned Judgment and order. The trial Court in the present case appears to have considered the relevant material to reach a conclusion of the acquittal and there are no any compelling or substantial grounds to upset the impugned Judgment and order. That being so, the Appeal has no merit and hence dismissed.