Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Kashinath Shridhar Wani on 11 February, 2009
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 173 OF 1997
The State of Maharashtra APPELLANT
VERSUS
Kashinath Shridhar Wani,
Kopargaon Railway Sub-Post
under Police Station (GRP),
Manmad. RESPONDENT
.....
Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil, A.P.P.for the appellant/State.
Mr. R.S. Shinde, advocate for the respondent.
.....
[CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]
DATE : 11th February, 2009
---------------------------
ORAL JUDGEMENT :
1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement of
acquittal rendered by learned Special Judge,
Ahmednagar, in Special Case No. 7 of 1991 whereby the
respondent came to be acquitted for offence punishable
under section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The respondent was attached to Railway Police
Station, Kopargaon, as an Assistant Police Sub
Inspector. Complainant Sk. Rashid used to reside
opposite to Railway Station premises at Kopargaon
alongwith his brother. At the material time,
complainant Sk. Rashid (PW1) was working as Pointsman
attached to Establishment of Railway Station, Yeola.
The distance between Yeola and Kopargaon is
approximately 19/20 kms. He used to commute from
Kopargaon to attend his work at Yeola Railway Station
during the duty hours. His younger brother Sk. Sahid
(PW2) was a temporary waterman attached to Kopargaon
Railway Station. His brother had some quarrel with
one Devidas Janrao and Arun Janrao, who are brothers
interse, and
ig run railway canteen at Kopargaon. The
incident of quarrel between them occurred on 11th
June, 1991 on account of money due from him for the
purchases made by him from the canteen. There was
exchange of abuses between them. The elder brother of
the said canteen proprietors is member of Railway
Protection Force. In the evening, said two (2)
brothers i.e. Devidas and Arun, their elder brother
and some railway police were seen coming towards house
of Sk. Sahid (PW2). He suspected that they were
likely to create some trouble for him. He
clandestinely left the house from backdoor and went to
Manmad. He resided there for about 5/6 days without
giving intimation to his elder brother or any member
of the family.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
15th June, 1991, the respondent went to Manmad in the
morning. He met Sk. Sahid (PW2) and assured him that
he need not be scared. The respondent asked him to
accompany him to Kopargaon. Both of them came to
Kopargaon Railway Station. The respondent then called
Arun Janrao. The respondent intervened and settled
the dispute. Thereafter, Arun Janrao left the place.
The respondent then demanded Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/-
for closure of the criminal case. Thereupon, Sk.
Sahid expressed inability on the ground that he had
not attended the duty for 5/6 days.
4. The prosecution alleges that on 18th June,
1991, Sk. Sahid (PW2) approached the Railway Station
Master with an application to allow him to join the
duty. The respondent then recommended Station Master
Shri Gadre to permit him to join the duty. The
respondent lateron repeated the demand for Rs. 300/-
to Rs. 400/- saying that he had closed the criminal
case. The demand was communicated by Sk. Sahid (PW2)
to his elder brother - complainant Sk. Rashid (PW1).
5. The prosecution further alleges that on 5th
July, 1991, the respondent demanded the amount from
Sk. Rashid (PW1) at about 5/5.30 p.m. when they met
each other at Railway Station, Kopargaon. At that
time, complainant Sk. Rashid (PW1) assured the
respondent that on next day, he would pay the amount
after receiving the salary. However, Sk. Rashid
(PW1) was unwilling to pay such amount. He,
therefore, approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB)
office at Nasik on 6th July, 1991 and gave his
complaint (Exh-31). A trap was arranged by Police
Inspector Nitin Mitkar (PW5) on basis of such
complaint. He called two (2) panch witnesses to the
ACB office. He explained to them the complaint of Sk.
Rashid (PW1). The complainant - Sk. Rashid produced
one (1) currency note of 100/- and four (4) currency
notes of Rs. 50/- denomination, which were smeared
with
Anthracene powder applied with help of a cotton
gauze. The panchas and complainant - Sk. Rashid were
informed as to how the use of Anthracene powder causes
bluish sparkle on the part of the body or the article
which comes into its contact, when examined under the
ultraviolet rays. A pre-trap panchanama was
thereafter drawn. One of the panch,namely,
Pandharinath (PW3) was asked to accompany complainant
Sk. Rashid (PW1) at the time of making payment of the
bribe amount. Another panch and the members of
raiding party were to keep vigil from close quarters.
The complainant was asked to give signal immediately
after the bribe amount was accepted by the respondent.
6. The tainted currency notes were thereafter put
in the pocket of the complainant. The members of the
raiding party went to a place near sugar factory at
Kopargaon in a jeep vehicle. Except complainant - Sk.
Rashid and panch Pandharinath, others remained behind
whereas both of them went towards the railway station.
The complainant - Sk. Rashid met the respondent at
the railway platform. They together went towards the
police chowki. The respondent then asked complainant
- Sk. Rashid whether he received the payment. The
complainant Sk. Rashid asked as to what happened to
case against his brother. The respondent then asked
whether he had brought the cash amount as was asked.
The complainant - Sk. Rashid told him that he had
brought Rs.
ig 300/- as per the directions and asked
further whether it should be paid then or on next day.
The respondent then told him that if he desired to
bury dead, then he shall pay
(-----------------------------). The respondent also
informed the complainant - Sk. Rashid that he had
said the same thing to the canteen boys. The
complainant - Sk. Rashid then gave the tainted
currency notes of Rs. 300/- to the respondent. The
respondent accepted the amount and put the same in the
left pocket of his shirt. The complainant - Sk.
Rashid came out of the police chowki and signalled the
members of the raiding party. The members of the
raiding party including second panch Patil rushed to
the police chowki. The respondent was nabbed. The
tainted currency notes were recovered from his shirt
pocket. The shirt pocket and the currency notes as
well as fingers of the respondent were found to bear
bluish glaze under the ultraviolet lamp. P.I. Nitin
Mitkar seized the tainted currency notes under a
post-trap panchanama drawn then and there.
7. P.I. Nitin Mitkar lodged FIR. On basis of
the material collected during course of investigation,
a report was submitted to the sanctioning authority
for the purpose of prosecution of the respondent. The
competent officer issued sanction order (Exh-39). The
respondent was thereafter chargesheeted to stand his
trial
for the offences punishable under section 7, 13
(1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent pleaded not
guilty to the charge. He denied truth into the
accusations that he had demanded unlawful
gratification for omission to initiate criminal case
against Sk. Sahid (PW2) and for the purpose of
recommendation to the Station Master to allow him to
join the duty. He denied that the amount was accepted
by way of illegal gratification. According to him,
complainant Sk. Rashid had borrowed an amount of Rs.
300/- from him due to family difficulties. It was
said handloan which was being returned at the material
time. He asserted that due to illwill against him, he
was falsely framed in the criminal case. Hence, he
sought acquittal from the charge. He also disputed
validity of the sanction order.
8. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all
five (5) witnesses in support of its case. The
learned Special Judge held that the demand for illegal
gratification was not proved. The learned Special
Judge further held that though the amount was accepted
by the respondent, yet, that by itself did not prove
necessary ingredients of the offence. The learned
Special Judge came to the conclusion that the sanction
order is invalid due to non-application of mind by the
competent authority. In keeping with such findings,
the respondent
ig came to be acquitted of the charge
levelled against him.
9. Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil, learned A.P.P.,
strenuously argued that the acceptance of the bribe
amount by the respondent is duly established. He
would submit that presumption under section 20 (1) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act is required to be
drawn. He invited my attention to statement of the
respondent under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure
Code and pointed out that the acceptance of the
tainted currency notes and recovery thereof from his
possession is admitted. He contended that there could
not be any loan transaction between the complainant
and the respondent when there was illwill between
them. He would submit that there was oral settlement
brought about by the respondent to close the future
criminal case which was likely to be instituted
against Sk. Sahid (PW2) and, therefore, mere fact
that there was absence of record in this behalf could
not be sufficient to dislodge the motive for payment
of the illegal gratification. He urged, therefore, to
allow the appeal and convict the respondent for the
charge. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Shinde
supports the impugned judgement.
10. Crucial points to be determined in this appeal
are :
(i) Whether it is proved beyond a reasonable realm
of doubt that the respondent demanded
amount of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- from
complainant - PW Sk. Rashid in order to
facilitate compromise of a criminal case which
was to be initiated against his brother,
namely, PW Sk. Sahid or as a remuneration to
omit to initiate such kind of criminal case
against him ?
(ii) Whether it is proved beyond a reasonable realm
of doubt that the respondent accepted amount
of Rs. 300/- from complainant - PW Sk.
Rashid on 6th July, 1991 being reward for
forbearing to do something or to omit his
official act of instituting the criminal case
against PW Sk. Sahid or for the purpose of
alleged recommendation to allow him to join
duty as waterman ?
11. The prosecution has come out with a case that
the respondent demanded illegal gratification with a
view to mitigate a probable criminal case which was
likely to be instituted against PW Sk. Sahid.
Another limb of the prosecution case is that the money
was demanded because the respondent recommended to
Station Master Shri Gadre that PW Sk. Sahid may be
allowed to
join the duty though he was absent for
about six (6) days. The respondent examined DW1
Jamshed as a defence witness. The testimony of DW
Jamshed purports to show that PW Sk. Rashid was on
duty at Yeola Railway Station during the relevant
period. He corroborated the attendance certificate
(Exh-51). However, he admitted that practice of the
railway workers was that they used to travel freely
without ticket. They used to frequently return to the
home inspite of their duty being at a particular
place. Therefore, his version is of no much
significance.
12. Coming to the version of PW2 Sk. Sahid, it
emerges that the incident about quarrel between him
and the operators of the Railway canteen had taken
place in the evening of 11th June, 1991. He returned
home after the exchange of abuses between himself and
said Arun Janrao. His version purports to show that,
in the evening, he noticed that said Arun alongwith
Railway policemen were seen coming to his house. He,
therefore, bolted away from the back door. He went to
Manmad without informing anyone. Obviously, his
brother was not knowing whereabouts of PW Sk. Sahid
until the respondent brought him back to Kopargaon on
15th June, 1991. It is the version of PW Sk. Sahid
that the respondent assured him that nothing untoward
will happen and, therefore, he shall return. On the
same
day, the respondent called aggrieved person Arun
at the police outpost, Kopargaon and pacified both the
parties. The respondent settled the dispute amongst
them. It was thereafter that the respondent demanded
Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- for closure of the criminal
complaint case. Thus, according to PW Sk. Sahid, the
first demand was made somewhere in the evening of 15th
June, 1991 when he alone was present. He never stated
that his brother Sk. Rashid was also present at the
relevant time. His version does not show that his
brother attended such kind of meeting for the
settlement of the dispute in the relevant evening.
The recitals of the complaint (Exh-31), however, would
show that Arun Ganpat Janrao had filed a criminal
complaint at the railway police station. The recitals
of the FIR further show that after about three (3)
days' absentia of Sk. Sahid, while he was taking his
brother to the Railway Station Master Shri Gadre for
permitting him to join the duty, the respondent met
him on the railway station and demanded them to pay
money for mitigation of the criminal case. It is
stated in the complaint (Exh-31) that the respondent
accompanied them to the office of the Railway Station
Master - Shri Gadre and recommended him to permit Sk.
Sahid to join the duty. The recitals of the FIR would
show that thereafter while the complainant and PW Sk.
Sahid were returning, the respondent demanded Rs.
300/Rs. 400 to close the criminal case and for
recommendation made by him to allow the brother of the
complainant to join the duty.
13. The version of PW Sk. Sahid, on the other
hand, shows that such demand was put forth on 15th
June, 1991 when the respondent brought about the
settlement between Arun Janrao and himself at the
railway police chowki. He stated that after about
three (3) days on 18th June, 1991, the complainant -
PW Sk. Rashid met him at the railway station,
Kopargaon when he had gone there to submit application
to the Station Master for allowing him to join the
duty. Obviously, there is significant discrepancy
regarding the time of the first demand made by the
respondent for the so called illegal gratification.
It is the version of PW Sk. Sahid that he, PW Sk.
Rashid and the respondent went to office of the
Railway Station Master. His version purports to show
that he and his brother entered the office of Station
Master Shri Gadre whereas the respondent awaited
outside that office. He does not say, even remotely,
that the respondent entered the office of the Station
Master and recommended that he shall be allowed to
join the duty. According to him, after he and his
brother went outside the office of the Station Master,
the respondent told them that he had closed the
criminal case and, therefore, amount of Rs. 300/- to
Rs. 400/- will have to be paid to him. Needless to
say, the so
called demand was made after the
contemplated work of putting an end to the criminal
case was done. It was not a demand for omitting to
initiate the criminal case. There is significant
variance in the versions of PW Sk. Rashid
(complainant) and PW Sk. Sahid in the context of the
nature of the demand made by the respondent and the
period of such demand. If the respondent had not
entered the office of the Railway Station Master Shri
Gadre, then there was no question of his intervention
and recommendation to the Station Master for allowing
PW Sk. Rashid to join the duty. I mean to say, he
had not used his influence over the Station Master -
Shri Gadre and, hence, there was no question of
seeking any unlawful monetary gain for such purpose.
It may be stated here that during search of the office
record of the respondent, admittedly, there was no
trace of any criminal complaint filed by Arun Janrao
against PW Sk. Rashid. Nor even a N.C. case was
registered against PW Sk. Rashid. The evidence on
the record would make it manifest that the respondent
had not taken any criminal action and Arun Janrao had
not filed any complaint against PW Sk. Sahid till
that time. It is the version of PWSk. Sahid that the
complainant PW Sk. Rashid was not with him when the
respondent demanded the amount from him. It appears
that Sk. Sahid partly declined to support the case of
prosecution and was subjected to cross-examination by
the A.P.P.
Nothing of significance, however, could be
gathered from his cross-examination.
14. It is pertinent to note that PW Sk. Sahid
admitted, unequivocally, that the respondent had no
concern with his employment as a railway waterman. He
admitted that he owed an amount of Rs. 60/- to the
proprietors of the railway canteen. According to him,
on 16th June, 1991, he alone met the Station Master
Shri Gadre and urged to allow him to join the duty.
The Station Master then directed him to submit an
application. He admitted that he was unaware of the
complaint lodged by his brother with the office of
A.C.B., Nasik on 6th July, 1991.
15. So far as version of PW1 Sk. Rashid
(complainant) is concerned, it may be gathered that he
was not knowing where PW Sk. Rashid had gone after
the quarrel between the latter and Arun Janrao. He
states that after 3/4 days, PW Sk. Rashid returned to
Kopargaon. He further deposed that while he was
taking PW Sk. Rashid to the Station Master, the
respondent informed that Arun had filed a criminal
case against PW Sk. Rashid and, therefore, he will
have to pay the amount for compromising the criminal
case. This part of his version is quite discrepant
with the recitals of the complaint (Exh-31). He too
does not say that the respondent recommended to
Station Master
ig Shri Gadre that PW Sk. Sahid may be
allowed to join the duty. Obviously, there could be
no payment for so called recommendations of the
respondent to the Station Master. The Station Master
- Shri Gadre was not examined by the prosecution.
Nor, the aggrieved person, namely, Arun Janrao was
examined in order to know what kind of criminal case
was likely to be filed against PW Sk. Rashid.
16. The version of PW Sk. Rashid purports to show
that on 5th July, 1991, again the demand was made by
the respondent to him. Then he assured to pay the
amount on next day. The version of PW Sk. Rashid
purports to show that on next day i.e. 6th July,
1991, he visited the office of A.C.B. at Nasik at
about 10.00/11.00 a.m. He lodged the complaint
(Exh-31). He narrated as to how the trap was
thereafter laid by P.I. Nitin Mitkar. He further
narrated as to how the payment was made to the
respondent at the time of the trap on 6th July, 1991.
He deposed on the line of his complaint.
Cross-examination of PW Sk. Rashid would show that he
had taken away a railway property (lamp) to his house
without permission. He admitted that the respondent
had asked him to return that railway property. He
further admitted that he was required to return the
said property at the railway office. He admitted
further that he was aggrieved because the respondent
had insisted
ig him to deposit the railway property at
the railway office. It was suggested to him that the
respondent had lent him Rs. 300/- which he had
returned at the material time. No doubt, the defence
story regarding so called loan transaction is
unfounded. It does not stand to reason that any loan
would have been given by the respondent when the
relations between them were soar due to his act of
calling upon PW Sk. Rashid to return the railway
lamp.
17. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil
would submit that the story about the loan transaction
is false and, therefore, acceptance of tainted
currency notes of Rs. 300/- by the respondent would
give rise to presumption that it was bribe amount.
The question of raising presumption under section 20
(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would arise
when there is cogent evidence regarding initial
demand. The accused may take various defences. It
may be found that his defence is worthless. Even so,
it is for the prosecution to establish the charge
beyond reasonable realm of doubt. The prosecution
relied upon version of PW3 Pandharinath in support of
the evidence about the trap. He is an independent
panch witness. His version purports to show that on
6th July, 1991, he was called by P.I. Nitin Mitkar in
the A.C.B. Office, Nasik. He narrated as to how the
use
of Anthracene powder was explained by P.I. Nitin
Mitkar to the panchas. He deposed that currency notes
of Rs. 300/- were smeared with Anthracene powder in
his presence and instructions were given to attend the
trap. His version purports to show that a pre-trap
panchanama (Exh-35) was drawn after the currency notes
of Rs. 300/- were smeared with Anthracene powder were
given to PW Sk. Rashid. He and the other members of
the police party, the second panch and PW Sk. Rashid
went to Kopargaon railway station in a police jeep.
They got down near premises of the Cooperative Sugar
Factory which are at a short distance from the railway
station. His version purports to show that at about
8.15 p.m., he and PW Sk. Rashid went to the railway
station. They met the respondent. The respondent
asked PW Sk. Rashid whether he had come (----------).
The respondent then inquired whether PW Sk. Rashid
had received the salary. After a preliminary talk, PW
Sk. Rashid asked the respondent what had happened
about the work of his brother. The respondent then
replied that if he wanted to bury the dead, then he
should first pay the money and that same thing was
told to the other boys (--------------------------
----------------------------------------------------).
The response of PW Sk. Rashid was to ask a further
question whether the money should be paid then or on
next day. It was thereafter that PW Sk. Rashid
handed over the tainted currency notes to the
respondent.
Thus, it is quite clear that at that
time, the respondent did not quantify the amount to be
paid and the purpose for which it was to be paid. The
reference to other boys (----------------) appears to
be in relation to Arun Janrao and his brother. It is
nobody's case that the respondent had demanded similar
kind of amount from Arun Janrao and his brother.
Therefore, there was no question of telling the same
thing to Arun Janrao and his brother by the
respondent. Obviously, one of the inference that can
be drawn is that the money was demanded by Arun Janrao
and his brother and after payment, they were not to
take action against PW Sk. Sahid. The version of PW
Pandharinath corroborates the post-trap panchanama
(Exh-36).
18. Cross-examination of PW Pandharinath reveals
that the respondent immediately gave an explanation
about the amount which was accepted. He admitted that
prior to reaching the railway station, he had come to
know about the quarrel which had taken place between
Arun Ganpat Janrao and brother of the complainant on
account of amount. He does not know whether the
utterances of the respondent viz.
"-------------------------------" was in relation to
the proprietors of the canteen. Thus, his version is
useful only to reach conclusion that the tainted
currency notes were accepted by the respondent at the
relevant time.
19. The nature of conversation between complainant
- PW Sk. Rashid and the respondent, at the time of
alleged trap, does not specifically show that the
respondent demanded bribe amount from him. Nor it
shows that the respondent insisted for the payment.
It was a conditional and optional proposal put forth
by him. What he stated to the complainant - PW Sk.
Rashid was that if the dead was to be buried, then the
money may be paid. This was indicative of option
given to PW Sk. Rashid to pay if he wanted to sort
out the previous dispute or any other claim whatever
was due from him. As stated before, version of PW Sk.
Sahid shows that the respondent had informed him about
closure of the criminal case on 15th June, 1991 itself
after the oral discussion between said aggrieved
person by name Arun Janrao and him. Needless to say,
the very motive for demand of such amount is rendered
in the realm of reasonalbe doubt.
20. The time-gap between the alleged demand for
the first time and the trap also is one of the factor
which would make the prosecution case weak. According
to PW Sk. Sahid, the first demand was made on 15th
June, 1991 whereas according to PW Sk. Rashid, it was
made on 18th June, 1991. The trap was laid on 6th
July, 1991. The record shows that PW Sk. Rashid had
developed
antipathy towards the respondent. The
version of PW5 P.I. Nitin Mitkar corroborates the
prosecution case regarding the trap and recovery of
the tainted currency notes from the possession of the
respondent. He denied that he had forwarded a draft
sanction order alongwith the relevant documents
forwarded to the sanctioning authority i.e. PW4 Iqbal
Ahmed. At this juncture, version of PW Iqbal Ahmed
may be considered. He was Superintendent of Police
and was competent authority to accord sanction for the
prosecution of the respondent. He corroborated the
sanction order (Exh-39). According to him, after
going through the relevant papers for 3/4 days, he was
satisfied that there was a prima facie case to accord
the sanction. He admitted that he had received the
draft sanction order alongwith the relevant papers.
Thus, the version of PW P.I. Nitin Mitkar in this
behalf is contradicted by PW Iqbal Ahmed. It is
admitted by PW Iqbal Ahmed that the complaint (Exh-31)
did not show that the respondent had demanded amount
for doing any official work and the nature of such
demand was not specified. He admitted that in the
complaint (Exh-31), it was not stated that on 18th
June, 1991, the respondent attempted to accept the
bribe. The sanction order (Exh-39), however, shows
that such act was attributed to the respondent. The
first part of sanction order reads as follows :
".......
ig is alleged to have committed the
following acts.
(1) On or about 18th June, 1991, attempted
to obtain a sum of Rs. 300/- / Rs. 400/- for
himself.
(2) On or about 5th July, 1991, attempted
to accept a sum of Rs. 300/- and directed the
complainant to pay the same on 6th July, 1991
in the Kopargaon Railway sub-post Kopargaon."
There is nothing on record to show that on 18th June,
1991, there was an attempt by the respondent to accept
the amount of Rs. 300/- or Rs. 400/- from PW Sk.
Rashid. The cross-examination of PW Iqbal Ahmed
purports to show that the sanction order incorrectly
shows the date as 7th July, 1991 as the day on which
the pecuniary advantage of Rs. 300/- was received by
the respondent by corrupt or illegal means. He admits
that in the complaint (Exh-31) or the papers of
investigation, there is no reference to date 7th July,
1991 as the date of payment of illegal gratification.
He candidly admits as follows :
"It is correct that these words were written
in the draft of sanction, which I received
alongwith the papers."
Thus, it is amply clear that he reproduced the written
date pertaining to acceptance of illegal
gratification, while issuing the sanction order
(Exh-39) on the basis of the draft sanction order
received by him. There is room to say, therefore,
that the sanction order was issued as per the draft
sanction order received by him and without independent
application of mind to the papers of investigation.
The Trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the
sanction order (Exh-39) is invalid due to
non-application of mind by the witness - PW Iqbal
Ahmed.
21. Mr. Shinde invited my attention to "Manohar
Manohar
Dhondu Sawant v. State of Maharashtra & another" 2006
(2) AIR Bom R 294.
294 A single Bench of this Court held
that mere acceptance of money by the accused is not
sufficient to prove commission of offence under
section 7 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It is held that the demand of bribe for the purpose of
doing or ommitting to do something in the discharge of
the official duty is required to be proved before any
presumption can be drawn. In "State
State of Maharashtra v.
Ramchandra Sudam Ingale" 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 3174,
3174 a
single Bench of this Court held that in an appeal
against acquittal, where sanction for prosecution was
found to be improper, the acquittal of the accused did
not call
for interference. It is well settled that
when there are two (2) views possible, one which is
favourable to the accused should be preferred unless
another view is so strong that no other inference than
the guilt of the accused can be reached. Under these
circumstances, the impugned order of acquittal does
not suffer from any serious legal infirmity.
22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The
impugned judgement of acquittal is confirmed. The
bail bonds of the respondent be deemed as cancelled.
[ V.R. KINGAONKAR ]
JUDGE
NPJ/CRIAPL173-97
