Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2477 (BOM)

Sadashiv Krishna Ningnure v. State of Maharashtra

2013-12-03

M.L.TAHALIYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : The appellant has been convicted by Special Judge, Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section l3( 1 ) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Complainant Aashish Sharad Sheth alias Mahadwale (hereinafter referred to as "Aashish or P.W.1") was resident of Shaniwar Peth, Satara. He was in the business of selling and repairing of weights and measures. He had a valid licence for the same. Mahadwales had two shops viz. 'Mahadwale Brothers' and 'Sheth Brothers'. Weights and Measures repaired by the complainant and his brothers were required to be certified by Weights and Measures Department. Accused Sadashiv Krishna Ningnure was working as Inspector in Weights and Measures Department. Some of the weights and measures of heavy nature were required to be inspected by the Inspector on the spot of customers of the complainant. 3. The complainant had visited the office of the appellant on 20th February, 2001 and had requested him to inspect the weights and measures of Kirloskar Copland Limited. The appellant had allegedly demanded Rs.Ten Thousand by way of gratification. P.W. 1 ultimately agreed to pay Rs.Ten Thousand in two installments. He agreed to pay Rs.Five Thousand on the next day and remaining amount was agreed to be paid at a later stage. The appellant agreed for the same. Since P.W. 1 did not want to pay bribe amount he lodged complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as "ACB" for brevity). Report of P.W. 1 is at Exh.26. 4. After recording of the complaint, P.W. 1 was directed to visit the office of ACB on next day. P.W. 1 was also directed to bring Rs.Five Thousand cash with him when he visits the office of ACB. P.W. 1, accordingly, visited the office of ACB, Satara and carried RS.Five Thousand with him. Panch witnesses were also called and all necessary formalities of pre-trap panchnama were completed. Officers of ACB gave a demonstration to P. W. 1 as to how anthracene powder glitters under the ultra violet rays. The currency notes brought by P.W. 1 were smeared with anthracene powder. The said amount of Rs.Five Thousand was kept in left side pant pocket of P.W. 1 by one constable. P.W. 1 was directed not to touch the left side pocket and to pay the amount only on demand made by the appellant. Usual preparation for trap was done. The currency notes brought by P.W. 1 were smeared with anthracene powder. The said amount of Rs.Five Thousand was kept in left side pant pocket of P.W. 1 by one constable. P.W. 1 was directed not to touch the left side pocket and to pay the amount only on demand made by the appellant. Usual preparation for trap was done. Accordingly, one of the witnesses was directed to accompany P.W. 1 and another witness was directed to be with the Raiding Party. P.W. 1 was also directed to give signal to the Raiding Party as soon as the bribe amount was accepted by the appellant. 5. P.W. 1, along with panch witness, reached the office of the appellant at about 12.15 hrs. in the afternoon. The appellant was not present in the office. He, however, reached the office within 10 to 15 minutes and demanded money from P.W. 1 by gestures. The amount, smeared with anthracene powder, was handed over to the appellant by P.W. 1. The amount was accepted by P.W. 1 by means of right hand and it was kept by him in his right side pocket of pant. Necessary pre-determined signal was given to the Raiding Party. The Raiding Party reached the spot and apprehended the appellant. The officers of the Raiding Party caught both the hands of the appellant. P.W. 1 was directed to go outside the room. Both the hands of the appellant were examined under ultra-violet rays and it was found that finger tips of his right hand glittered under ultra-violet light. Similar glitter was found on right side pocket of the appellant. Post trap panchnama was drawn. Currency notes were seized. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court of law. 6. The case came up for hearing before the Special Judge. The Special Judge framed a charge for the above stated offences to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution had examined in all four witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 was complainant, P.W. 2 was panch witness, P.W. 3 was Sanctioning Authority and P.W. 4 was the Investigating Officer. 7. The defence of the appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that he was falsely implicated by the complainant as he did not succumb to the pressure of the complainant in his official duties. 8. 7. The defence of the appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that he was falsely implicated by the complainant as he did not succumb to the pressure of the complainant in his official duties. 8. P.W. 1 has given evidence more or less similar to the contents of his first information report. However, there is a glaring discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2 and 4 who were present at the time when post-trap panchnama was drawn. In this regard, it may be noted here that P.W. I was asked to leave the room when post trap panchnama was drawn. 9. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 2 that the appellant had accepted the said amount by his right hand and kept in his right side pocket of the pant. It has further come in his evidence that when the Raiding Party reached the spot and they examined the hands of the appellant and his clothes under ultra-violet light, the finger tips of right hand of the appellant were glittering. Similar glitter was found on the edges of left side pant pocket of the appellant. It may be noted here that the amount was kept by the appellant in his right side pant pocket and therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to touch his left side pocket. Even if he had touched his left side pocket, glitter should have been on the both pockets. However, since the glitter was found on one of the pockets and that too on left pocket, the evidence of P.W. 2 becomes doubtful. What is further noted is that the amount was allegedly kept by the appellant in his right side pocket. Therefore, the complete pocket should have glittered and not only the edges. At the same time, when the amount was inserted in the pocket, the appellant must have used his complete right palm to insert the amount in his right pant pocket. Therefore, in normal course complete right side pocket and complete right palm should have glittered. The glittering of finger tips only and edges of the pant pocket only gives scope to doubt the prosecution case. Possibility of appellant touching the currency notes in some other manner cannot be ruled out. 10. Evidence of P.W. 4 is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 2 in this regard. The glittering of finger tips only and edges of the pant pocket only gives scope to doubt the prosecution case. Possibility of appellant touching the currency notes in some other manner cannot be ruled out. 10. Evidence of P.W. 4 is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 2 in this regard. The evidence of P.W. 4 is consistent with the prosecution case. However, evidence of P.W. 2 goes contrary to it. These are the two eyewitnesses who were present at the time of examination of hands of the appellant and pocket of trouser of the appellant. Since the evidence of two witnesses, examined by the prosecution, is not consistent in nature, a reasonable doubt has been created about the prosecution case. In my opinion, the benefit of this must go to the appellant. Hence, I pass the following order. I. The judgment and Order of the learned Special Judge, Satara in Special Case No.3 of 2002 is set aside. II. The Appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. III. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Fine if any, paid, paid by the Appellant shall be refunded to him. Criminal Appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.