Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1547 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Raghunath

2012-08-14

A.P.BHANGALE

body2012
Judgment : 1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged validity and legality of the Judgment and order dated 19/10/2000 passed by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case no. 4 of 1993 Whereby the learned Special Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent/ accused of the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1) (d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard the submissions at the Bar. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The accused was serving as a Junior Engineer in the year 1992 in the Office of the M.S.E.B., Wardha Maneri. For the distribution of the electricity, Village Jalgaon, Tahasil Arvi Dist. Wardha was within the local limits of the M.S.E.B.‘s Office of Wardha Maneri. Some agriculturists, including Complainant Devidas Chendbaji Wasule had applied for supply of electricity to their well, where they got fitted electric Motor Pump. Devidas owned field bearing Survey No.384, admeasuring 11 acres of land containing the Well. On 25/01/1991, he had applied for supply of electricity. As the electric connection was not given, the Complainant and four others applied for granting connection to the Assistant Engineer of M.S.E.B., Wardha Maneri on the ground that the Orange trees are drying for want of water irrigation. On 30/11/1991, the Assistant Engineer sent a letter (Ex.56) to the Junior Engineer directing to submit a report by 25/11/1991 on eight points. The Junior Engineer submitted the report and the estimate of Rs 81,000/-to supply electricity to five agriculturists at village Jalgaon with a proposed new transformer of 63 K.V.A. (vide Exhs. 57 to 61). Details were submitted regarding the load in H.P. measurement(Ex.59). 4. The Complainant was awaiting the connection for 5 to 6 months. Then, he met Shri. Thote, an Engineer at Wardha-Maneri requesting the demand note required for the electric connection. Shri. Thote was avoiding on the ground that there was excess load on the Transformer 15 at the village Jalgaon and till the installation of the new transformer, no electricity connection can be given. The Complainant told Shri Thote that demand note is given to the other agriculturists, who had filed applications for granting the electricity connection. Shri. Thote was avoiding on the ground that there was excess load on the Transformer 15 at the village Jalgaon and till the installation of the new transformer, no electricity connection can be given. The Complainant told Shri Thote that demand note is given to the other agriculturists, who had filed applications for granting the electricity connection. The Complainant alleged that one Shri Ramteke, Wireman had come and met the agriculturists in the village and informed them that if they want electricity connection, they will have to be ready to pay money to Shri Thote, otherwise their work will not be done. It was further informed that the new Transformer will be installed and the connection will be provided from the new Transformer when it is installed. Amount of Rs 500/-was demanded from each of the agriculturists payable to Engineer Shri Thote. The Complainant refused to pay the amount on the ground that he is poor and unable to pay the same. Shri Ramteke then advised the Complainant to meet Shri Thote. On 4/2/1992, the Complainant went to M.S.E.B. Office at Wardha-Maneri to meet the respondent, but he was not present in the Office at that time. Complainant came to know that the respondent had gone to Arvi. The Complainant went to Arvi and met the respondent-accused. The accused told him that there is excess load on the Transformer and the electric connection shall be supplied from the new Transformer. When the complainant enquired as to how the connection was supplied to Shri Shankar Nichat of his village without load on the transformer, the accused told the Complainant that the electric connection might have been given to one agriculturist, but now it is not possible. On 7/2/1992, when the Complainant met again with a request for demand note, the accused demanded the sum of Rs 500/-. The Complainant left on the pretext of arranging the amount till 11/2/1992. The Complainant could not arrange the amount, but he met the accused and told him that, on the market day i.e. Thursday, he will receive the labour charges and will meet him on Friday. The Complainant asked the accused to reduce the demand, but the accused replied that not even a single pie would be reduced. 5. On 13/02/1992, the Complainant approached the Office of the ACB, Wardha and lodged a complaint against the accused narrating the facts. The Complainant asked the accused to reduce the demand, but the accused replied that not even a single pie would be reduced. 5. On 13/02/1992, the Complainant approached the Office of the ACB, Wardha and lodged a complaint against the accused narrating the facts. Statement of the Complainant was recorded by Shri S. K Gautam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Wardha (PW6). Pancha witnesses were summoned from the Office of the Executive Engineer, Minor irrigation, Wardha. Pre-trap Panchanama was drawn on 13/02/1992 at an evening time and the trap was planned on 14/02/1992 in the morning. Panchas and the Complainant were given demonstration in relation to phenolphthalein powder and the solution of Sodium Carbonate and were instructed regarding precaution to be taken before and at the time of the trap, as planned. At about 11.30 a.m., the Complainant and Pancha no.1 entered in the Office of M.S.E.B., Wardha Maneri. Within a short period, they came out and sat near flag post as the Office was not yet open. Accused Raghunath Thote, despite a long wait, did not come to the Office on that day and the trap was differed to 17/02/1992. On that day, at about 12.20 p.m., the Complainant along with Pancha no.1 reached the Office of Electricity near the Gram Panchayat Office and upon receiving the signal, the raiding party raided accused Thote, Junior Engineer M.S.E.B. Distribution Center, Wardha Maneri. The currency notes were found from the table kept beneath the paper. Raiding Panchanama was drawn (Ex-54). Gautam (PW6) prepared the complaint (Ex.92) and reported to Arvi Police Station. (FIR Ex.93) Crime no.116 of 1992 was registered. The articles seized were referred to the Chemical Analyser. Reports were received (Ex.94). Sanction was obtained (Ex.84). The accused was chargesheeted. The prosecution examined six witnesses. The fact that the accused was a public servant as he was an employee of the “Board” established under the State Act is not in dispute. The validity of the sanction granted is also not disputed at the time of final hearing. 6. Mr.D.B.Patel, learned A.P.P. for the State took me through the evidence on the record and submitted that the offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the impugned Judgment and order of acquittal ought to be set aside as the learned trial Judge did not consider the evidence in totality. 6. Mr.D.B.Patel, learned A.P.P. for the State took me through the evidence on the record and submitted that the offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the impugned Judgment and order of acquittal ought to be set aside as the learned trial Judge did not consider the evidence in totality. According to the learned A.P.P., the learned trial Judge did not mention the contradictions and the discrepancies which led to the order of acquittal. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the accused had received the bribe by his two fingers and then kept it on the table beneath the paper. Learned trial Judge gave undue importance to the conversations between the Complainant and the Panchas interse and raised doubts about the prosecution case. 7. Mr.D.I.Jain, Adv. holding for Mr.A.S.Mardikar, Adv. for the respondent submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal ought not to be interfered with. He referred to the ruling in TotaSingh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1987 SC 1083 (1). The Apex Court explained the legal position regarding permissibility of interference by the Appellate Court. It is not in dispute that jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with the order of acquittal is circumscribed by limitation. Merely because the Appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence arrives at the conclusion which is at variance with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court; it would not be a valid and sufficient ground to set aside the order of acquittal. There has to be some manifest illegality or conclusion recorded by the Court below which can be termed as ‘perverse’. When two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence and the trial Court had arrived at the conclusion which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. In Para 6 of the Judgment, the Apex Court observed thus:- “This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a re-appreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous.” In Tota Singh’s case (supra), interference by the High Court in the Judgment and Order of acquittal was considered as wholly unwarranted in the light of the above principles. 8. Learned Advocate for the respondent then relied upon the ruling in RamjiSurjya and another vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 810 to canvas the principle that when two views are reasonably possible, the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the Judgment of the trial Court even if it is possible to take a different view after a process of laborious reasoning. The Appellate Court cannot easily brush aside the appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court. 9. The trial Court has considered the entire evidence on the record in details to record its findings on all the points for determination. Learned Trial Judge had an occasion to see demeanor of the witnesses deposing before it. The deposition of Complainant Devidas Ganbaji Vasule (PW1) and Panchas : Laxman Ramkrushna Pranjale (PW2) and Mangesh Vishwanath Chilamkar (PW3) were not corroborative of each other. Material discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 to 3 were noted. The notes were not seized from the physical possession of the accused. When the demand and negotiation of the bribe, as alleged, also appeared untrustworthy, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Material discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 to 3 were noted. The notes were not seized from the physical possession of the accused. When the demand and negotiation of the bribe, as alleged, also appeared untrustworthy, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The evidence of the Complainant was a weak link as he did not remember the important fact of his life as to the demand made from him, acceptance by the accused and recovery of alleged bribe amount. Shri Shankar Nichat got electricity connection on 5/2/1992, while the Complainant mentioned his imaginary date 4/2/1992 questioning how Shri Shankar Nichat got connection on 4/2/1992. Shri Ramteke was not examined as a witness. Therefore, evidence of the Complainant to the effect what Ramteke told him cannot be a primary evidence but an evident of hearsay nature, not admissible in law. The trial Court did not find any evidence to show that, on 4/2/1992, the Complainant was called by the accused. The independent decision of the Complainant was not pursuant to the demand. The demand by the accused was not established for want of coherent evidence as discussed by a well reasoned decision of the trial Court. The benefit of doubt, thus, was rightly given to the accused. 10. Bearing in mind the principles in relation to exercise of the appellate powers in cases of acquittal, the only logical and legal conclusion that could be reached is that of dismissal of the Appeal. Hence, the instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed.