Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1613 (BOM)

Manohar v. State of Maharashtra

2012-08-24

A.P.BHANGALE

body2012
Judgment : 1. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dt.9.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in Special Anti-Corruption Case No.3 of 2000, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month on the second count, the appellant/accused has preferred the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment and Order as also both the oral and the documentary evidence adduced on record. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: That the appellant/accused was working as an Accountant at Mahatma Phule Magaswarg Mahamandal, Buldana and was responsible to issue subsidy cheques to beneficiaries. Complainant and one Sanjay enquired with the accused as to whether their cheques were ready, upon which the accused replied that they will have to pay Rs.500/-per cheque. After negotiations, the amount was reduced to Rs.250/-each. The accused asked the Complainant to pay the amount through Mhaske, Peon and told that unless the amount is received by him, he would not prepare and issue cheques. 4. It is the prosecution case that Complainant Ashruba was not willing to pay illegal gratification to the accused and, therefore, he lodged a report with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Witnesses from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board were called. Pre-trap panchanama was prepared. After necessary arrangements were made, the Complainant and pancha no.1 Ashok went to the Office of accused. Raiding party remained outside. After introduction of pancha no.1 Ashok as brother of Complainant's wife, the Complainant asked the accused whether the cheques were ready. The accused asked said Ashok to go outside the room. Therefore, Ashok came outside and stopped near window through which the accused and the Complainant could be seen. At that time, the accused asked the Complainant about money. Complainant replied that he had brought Rs.250/-for his cheque and Rs.250/-for Sanjay's cheque. Accused told him that Complainant will have to pay Rs.500/-for each cheque. Complainant, in turn, requested the accused to issue his cheque. At that time, the accused asked the Complainant about money. Complainant replied that he had brought Rs.250/-for his cheque and Rs.250/-for Sanjay's cheque. Accused told him that Complainant will have to pay Rs.500/-for each cheque. Complainant, in turn, requested the accused to issue his cheque. Accused gave him one envelope and asked the Complainant to put money therein and when the Complainant offered the envelope back to the accused, he asked him to keep the envelope in a rack which was at one corner of the room. After keeping the envelope in rack, accused gave him a letter and cheque of subsidy. He asked the Complainant to send Sanjay Ingle with Rs.500/-at the earliest possible. On coming outside, the Complainant gave signal; raiding party rushed inside and the accused pointed the rack where the amount was kept. The bribe amount was seized. Further procedure was followed. Currency notes found in the rack were the same as referred to in the panchanama. 5. P.I. Devidas Mahale of Anti-Corruption Bureau lodged report with Police Station, Buldana on 31.3.1999. On the basis of said report, crime was registered against the accused. After the investigation was over, charge sheet was submitted after necessary sanction before the Special Court. 6. Defence of the accused was that, he neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana held that the accused had demanded gratification amounting to Rs.250/-each from Complainant Ashruba and Sanjay for issuing cheques and accepted gratification of Rs.500/-. Learned trial Judge accordingly convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine, as aforesaid. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant contends that neither demand nor acceptance of bribe amount has been proved in this case. He submits that the learned trial Judge did not take into consideration the admissions given by the Complainant. He further submits that peon Mhaske was interested witness as he was relative of Ashruba (Complainant) (PW4). He also submits that the learned trial Court has given unnecessary importance to C.A. report. Since, according to prosecution, those tainted notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and, therefore, the C.A. report was bound to be positive. Learned Advocate contends that the notes were kept in an envelope kept in a rack where everyone had an access. He also submits that the learned trial Court has given unnecessary importance to C.A. report. Since, according to prosecution, those tainted notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and, therefore, the C.A. report was bound to be positive. Learned Advocate contends that the notes were kept in an envelope kept in a rack where everyone had an access. He prayed that the impugned Judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the appellant/accused is entitled to get an acquittal. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence. 9. Prosecution is under obligation to prove that there is demand of money on the part of public servant which was not legal or that public servant was demanding illegal gratification in respect of an official act and he, in fact, received or obtained money as illegal gratification by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant while holding Office as a public servant. It is also settled position that recovery by itself without proof of demand is not sufficient to convict the accused u/s.7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, prosecution has to establish that there was voluntary demand of bribe and acceptance thereof as illegal gratification. 10. In the present case, prosecution has examined Complainant Ashruba Govinda Winkar (PW4). According to the Complainant, the accused had initially demanded the sum of Rs.500/-and then shown willingness to accept Rs.250/-. The learned Advocate for the appellant criticized the evidence of the Complainant. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the Complainant deposed that the accused had told him to keep envelope in a rack of wall and accordingly, the Complainant kept it there. In the course of cross-examination, the Complainant has admitted that he was feeling that the employees are unnecessarily giving trouble to him which shows that he had developed animosity towards the employee of Mahatma Phule Vikas Mahamandal, Buldana. In the cross-examination, the Complainant is unable to tell the date on which the accused had demanded money from him. According to him, specific day and date was not fixed for giving amount to the accused. Furthermore, he had clearly admitted that the accused had not taken the amount in hand. The learned Advocate for the appellant also submitted that the water room was behind the room of the accused in the Office. According to him, specific day and date was not fixed for giving amount to the accused. Furthermore, he had clearly admitted that the accused had not taken the amount in hand. The learned Advocate for the appellant also submitted that the water room was behind the room of the accused in the Office. The panch was present outside the room near the window. Mhaske (PW3) was a peon. The Complainant had not met Mhaske on that day. According to the Complainant, he kept amount in pocket and kept that pocket in the rack. The learned Advocate for the appellant, therefore, submitted that the amount was not accepted, but, according to the Complainant, it was kept in the rack in the pocket. Therefore, there is every possibility that it was thrusted in the Office of the accused by the Complainant. Furthermore, solution of Sodium Carbonate was not sprinkled in the envelope from inside or outside. There was no change of colour on the envelope as admitted by the Investigating Officer. 11. Sanjay Shriram Ingle (PW5) in the course of his cross-examination admitted that he had not given Rs.250/-to Ashruba (Complainant) on 29th or 30th March, 1999. Govind Mhaske (PW3) claimed that he had gone in the room of accused to drink water. Except that, he does not know anything. In the cross-examination, he admitted that arrangement to drink water was not available in the room of accused Jagtap and it is available in the room located behind the room of the accused. It indicated that Mr.Mhaske never entered inside the room of Jagtap (accused). The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that, it is in the light of these admissions that the entire evidence has to be appreciated. 12. Ashok Ramchandra Kolte (PW1) clearly stated that Sanjay Ingle (PW5) was not present in the Office of Anti-Corruption department. Under these circumstances, the prosecution did not prove that the amount of alleged bribe was accepted by the accused. Actual payment itself was doubtful and not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was no reliable evidence as to whether the accused had accepted the envelope containing tainted money. 13. The next question which remains for consideration is whether it was possible for Govind Mhaske (PW3) to over hear the demand made by the accused. Actual payment itself was doubtful and not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was no reliable evidence as to whether the accused had accepted the envelope containing tainted money. 13. The next question which remains for consideration is whether it was possible for Govind Mhaske (PW3) to over hear the demand made by the accused. According to him, he drank water, but it was a place situated outside the room of the accused because arrangement to drink water was not available inside the room wherein accused Jagtap was sitting. The learned Advocate for the appellant, therefore, submitted that, for Mr.Govind Mhaske (PW3) it was not possible to go inside the room of the accused without there being any drinking water facility inside the room of the accused. Therefore, the evidence of Govind Mhaske is of doubtful credibility. Making reference to the evidence of Complainant, it is submitted that, according to the admissions in the course of cross-examination by the Complainant, it is doubtful as to whether there was any demand from the accused because the Complainant is unable to tell the date on which the accused demanded money. He also admitted that there was no specific day or date fixed for giving the amount to the accused and he admitted that the accused had not taken the amount in his hand. Under these circumstances, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, the inference which could be drawn from the evidence of the Complainant is that there was no demand from the accused. At least there could be two views and one which is favourable to the accused ought to have been accepted by the trial Judge. 14. The learned Advocate for the appellant/accused made a reference to the ruling in Suresh Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 3738, wherein it was held that mere recovery of money from the accused is not sufficient to raise any presumption against him. Further holding that there is absence of motive on the part of the accused either to demand or to accept bribe which renders the prosecution story doubtful, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) r/w. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was set aside and the accused therein was acquitted. 15. 15. Reliance is also placed on the judgment delivered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.305 of 2003 with Criminal Appeal No.332 of 2003, dated 30th June, 2010 (Bhimrao Mahadeoji Panchbhave vs. State). In the said case, this Court held as under: “If two things, namely (1) demand, and (2) acceptance of the bribe money are proved, and money is recovered from the possession of accused, then burden shifts on the accused to prove that money received by him and consequently recovered from him was not accepted by him by way of illegal gratification. The presumption of illegal gratification will come into play only after the demand and acceptance are proved. “ 16. There is definite substance in the contention that the view favourable to the accused is to be preferred if two views are possible from the evidence led on record and when the credibility of witnesses is doubtful. Thus, if the evidence is doubtful showing that the amount was not recovered from the actual physical possession of the accused, but from the envelope kept elsewhere on rack and traces of Sodium Carbonate was not detected inside or outside the envelope in question, benefit of doubt ought to be given in favour of the appellant. The learned trial Judge erred to consider the doubts created by the evidence on record and erred in law to convict the accused. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. The bail bond stands discharged. The amount of fine, if any, be refunded to the accused.