Sewakdas Tukaram Jumde vs State Of Maharashtra
2012 Latest Caselaw 9 Bom

     apeal339.03.J.odt                                                                                                 1/23 


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                                                       
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.339 OF 2003




                                                                          
     Sewakdas Tukaram Jumde,
     Aged about 54 years,




                                                                         
     R/o Bhiwapur Ward, Chandrapur.
     [died on 14.11.2010] through
     Smt. Kusum Sewakdas Jumde,
     Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife,




                                                       
     R/o Bhiwapur Ward, Chandrapur,
                                
     District Chandrapur.                                                   ...                      APPELLANT

                                        VERSUS
                               
     State of Maharashtra,
     Through Dy. Superintendent of Police,
     Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur.                                    ...                  RESPONDENT
      
   



                                    ***
     Mr. R.D. Wakode, Advocate for Appellant.
     Mr. N.R. Rode, APP for Respondent/State.





                                    ***

     CORAM           :   A.R. JOSHI, J.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT:05.09.2012.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT ON 28.09.2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Heard rival arguments on this criminal appeal preferred by

appellant/original accused challenging the judgment and order dated

apeal339.03.J.odt 2/23

07.05.2003, by which the appellant/original accused was convicted of

the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay

a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one

month. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section

13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three

months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run

concurrently. Being aggrieved by said impugned judgment and order

original accused preferred this appeal.

2. During the pendency of the appeal original appellant/accused

died on 14.11.2010 and his widow proceeded further with the said

appeal and she is pursuing the matter.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

During the relevant year 1993 original appellant/accused was

working as Senior Assistant/Clerk in Panchayat Samiti Office,

Sindewahi, District Chandrapur. One Namdeo Kodape was serving as

apeal339.03.J.odt 3/23

Teacher in Zilla Parishad Primary School, Gunjewahi, District

Chandrapur he retired on 30.09.1991. He submitted papers for

preparation of pension case but it was not finalized and his retirement

benefits were not given to him. Apparently, it was due to some dispute

regarding his exact date of birth and as such dispute regarding on which

date he is supposed to retire from service. Prior to finalization of his

pension case said Namdeo Kodape died on or about 20.08.1993 and

thereafter his son Ashok Kodape, the complainant pursued the matter

by visiting the Panchayat Samiti Office and used to meet the original

accused who was then Senior Assistant posted in Education

Department of Panchayat Samiti and was dealing with the pension case

of Namdeo Kodape. Time and again Ashok Kodape complainant

requested the accused to expedite the finalization of pension case and

despatch the papers for sanction of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla

Parishad so that the retirement benefits could be expeditiously given.

4. Allegedly during such visits there was demand of Rs.500/- by

the accused in order to process further the pension case papers. On

request of complainant Ashok Kodape said demand was reduced to

apeal339.03.J.odt 4/23

Rs.400/- and out of that complainant had paid Rs.200/- as a part

payment and Rs.200/- were remaining to be paid. Again sometime on

20.12.1993 accused repeated his demand for balance amount of

Rs.200/- when complainant Ashok Kodape met him for the work.

Accused agree to accept the said amount on 21.12.1993. By this time

complainant was not happy with the conduct of the accused and was

not ready and willing to pay the said remaining bribe amount of Rs.200/-

as such he approached Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur and lodged

oral report on 21.12.1993. His complaint was reduced into writing.

Panch witnesses were called and were apprised with the contents of the

complaint. Pre-trap panchnama was drawn at the office of Anti

Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur during which the procedure regarding

the trap was apprised to the panchas. Detailed pre-trap panchanama

was drawn. The currency notes of Rs.200/- were smeared with

phenolphthalein powder and were given in the custody of the

complainant. Necessary instructions were given to complainant and the

panch witness regarding action to be taken after demand and

acceptance of bribe amount by the accused.

apeal339.03.J.odt 5/23

5. The raiding party members including panchas and

complainant and A.C.B. Officer Mr. Pawar went to the office of the

accused at Sindewahi. Complainant and panch witness no.1 proceeded

ahead and met the accused. Accused inquired the complainant as to

whether amount has been brought and on complainant answering in

affirmative accused asked them to wait outside, as by that time the

inspection of the office was going on. After some time, accused came

out and along with complainant and pancha went to nearby hotel and

took tea. Complainant had a talk with the accused regarding pension

case of his father. After taking tea accused and complainant went

towards the urinal and then complainant took out the currency notes

from his pocket and gave them to the accused, accused accepted the

amount and kept in his shirt pocket. They all went to the office of the

accused. On the way complainant gave signal to the raiding party

members as such raiding party rushed to the office and caught hold of

the accused and usual trap procedure was adopted regarding taking the

custody of the articles including currency notes from the accused and

testing his hands, shirt pocket etc. for presence of phenolphthalein

apeal339.03.J.odt 6/23

powder by using lime solution. Detailed trap panchnama was conducted

and accused was put under arrest.

6. Detailed report of the trap was prepared and was sent to the

concerned Police Station for registration of offence with Police

Constable. On the basis of said report, Crime No.330/1993 was

registered at Sindewahi Police Station. Matter was investigated by

A.C.B. Officer Mr. Pawar. During the investigation service record of the

accused was called and seized. After obtaining C.A. Reports and on

completion of investigation proposal was sent for obtaining sanction to

lodge prosecution against the accused. Sanction order was received

and then the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court.

7. On framing of charge against the accused for the offence

punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, accused pleaded not guilty. According to the accused in the

pension case of father of the complainant, the delay in finalizing the

case was due to error in respect of the actual date of birth of the

pensioner. Also according to the accused entire pension case was

prepared by his predecessor as said accused joined the said office only

apeal339.03.J.odt 7/23

on 20.01.1992. According to accused, the amount regarding Group

Insurance Scheme was to be recovered from the pensioner Namdeo

Kodape and said deductions were not made from his salary, as his

salary for the same period was not drawn because of dispute regarding

the birth date of Kodape.

8. It is also the defence of the accused that after taking over the

charge in January 1992, he apprised himself with the pension case of

Kodape and found that there were two orders. One was regarding

reversion of Kodape and another was pertaining to removing him from

the service. In that order, it was mentioned that the retirement benefits

should not be given to Kodape. The order regarding removing from

service on 31.10.1991 and in view of the direction not to pay him

retirement benefits, the entire case remained pending and there was

great deal of correspondence with the higher office. According to the

accused, afterwards on 27.09.1993 letter was received from the

Education Department to prepare pension case on the basis of the order

dated 11.04.1991. Letter dated 27.09.1993 was from Education Officer,

Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur directing to clear the file of the pensioner

apeal339.03.J.odt 8/23

and it was addressed to superior officer of the accused i.e. Block

Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti. In response to the said directions

from Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, again a letter dated

30.11.1993 was sent by Block Development Officer to Education Officer,

Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur asking for clarification as to from which date

said Namdeo Kodape was supposed to be held as retired. According to

accused, because of such correspondence and asking for clarification

by his superior, the pension file could not be cleared and remained

pending. Moreover, certain outstanding amounts towards the Group

Insurance Scheme were also required to be obtained prior to clearing

the pension case papers and releasing the amount for unpaid salary.

9. According to the accused, on the day of the trap, inspection

in the office was going on and at that time complainant wanted to

deposit the arrears towards contribution of Group Insurance Scheme for

his father. On such desire of the complainant, the accused told him to

deposit the amount with Cashier. When the complainant went to Cashier

he was not in the seat and hence the complainant again came back to

the accused and requested the accused to take money, as he wanted to

apeal339.03.J.odt 9/23

go to outstation immediately and could not wait till arrival of cashier and

deposit the amount with cashier. According to the accused, the

complainant asked him to get xerox copies of the relevant case papers

as required and he paid the amount pertaining to arrears of Group

Insurance Scheme and also certain charges for preparing the xerox

copies of the documents. According to the accused, he received the

said amount in good faith in order to pay the arrears. The complainant

was in hurry to go away. According to the complainant, it was not the

bribe amount but the amount towards the arrears of Group Insurance

Scheme and miscellaneous xerox copying charges for finalizing the

documentation of the pension case papers. At this juncture, it must be

mentioned that in support of this defence, the accused had examined

defence witness - D.W.1, who was then Senior Assistant/Clerk in the

office of Panchayat Samiti, Sindewahi, where the accused was working.

10. During the trial, total seven witnesses were examined. P.W.1

is the complainant Ashok Kodape. P.W.2 is the panch witness. P.W.3 is

the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, who had

granted sanction to prosecute the accused. P.W.4 is the Head

apeal339.03.J.odt 10/23

Constable from A.C.B. Office, who carried the letter, report and articles

etc. to the office of C.A. P.W.5 is Laxminarayan Sonawane, Block

Education Officer, Sindewahi then working as Senior Clerk, who

deposed regarding the pension case file pending for correction of birth

date of Namdeo Kodape. The said matter was pending with the accused

and there were directions of the higher officer not to pass the

pensionery benefits till the dispute regarding the correct birth date is

solved. P.W.6 is Block Development Officer, Sindewahi. He identified

the service book record of the accused. P.W.7 is Ashok Pawar, the

Investigating Officer/Deputy Superintendent in the A.C.B. Office,

Chandrapur and he conducted the entire trap procedure and also

investigated the matter. Finding mainly the evidence of complainant and

that of panch witness, trustworthy, the trial Court held that the accused

was guilty of the offence charged and accordingly convicted him.

11. During the course of arguments, learned Advocate for the

appellant/accused raised various points mentioning firstly, that the

demand of bribe amount has not been proved conclusively, as there is

discrepancy in the evidence of complainant viz-a-viz contents of the

apeal339.03.J.odt 11/23

complaint. Secondly, the alleged delay in finalizing the pension case

papers of the father of the complainant was beyond the control of the

accused. Thirdly, certain dues were recoverable from the father of the

complainant towards Group Insurance Scheme. Fourthly, there was

defect in granting of the sanction order and non-application of mind of

the sanctioning authority. Fifthly, there was no departmental inquiry

conducted against the accused after the trap and as such it

presupposes innocence of the accused. This defence shall be dealt

with in detail hereunder at the appropriate place.

12. Prior to discussing the said defence, certain admitted position

is required to be mentioned, in order to crystallize the issue. From the

defence raised on behalf of the appellant/accused, it is admitted position

that an amount of Rs.200/- was found with the accused, which was

given on the relevant day of the trap. As such, there is no dispute

regarding finding of said amount with the accused. Secondly, the

Special Court had discussed the explanation of the accused for

accepting the cash from the complainant. However, it was so accepted

only to the extent of Rs.170/- and not for Rs.200/-. On this aspect, it is

apeal339.03.J.odt 12/23

seen that explanation has been given by the Special Court in paragraph

nos. 32, 33 and 35 of the impugned judgment. It is apparently accepted

by the Special Court that the deductions towards Group Insurance

Scheme from the salary of the employee was to be recovered @ Rs.30/-

per month from June 1991 to September 1991, so that amount comes to

Rs.120/- and not Rs.200/-. Further, it is observed in para 33 of the

impugned judgment that the accused raised defence that the amount

received by him of Group Insurance Scheme contribution and expenses

for preparing the xerox copies of documents. According to defence, the

expenses for xerox copies were Rs.50/-. Hence, the total amount,

which according to the defence, would come to Rs.170/- as acceptable

from the complainant and not Rs.200/-. On this aspect, the substantive

evidence of defence witness/employee of the accused was also

discussed by the Special Court in para 34 of the impugned judgment.

The defence of the accused that he was to receive the amount of Group

Insurance Scheme as the said amount was to be actually received by

the cashier and for that purpose a note-sheet was required to be

prepared by the accused. By pointing out this, it is held by the Special

apeal339.03.J.odt 13/23

Court that as the note sheet was not prepared, the defence of the

accused is untenable.

13. Bearing in mind the above, the defence of the

appellant/accused is to be discussed in detail. Firstly, according to the

defence, the demand was not proved on this aspect. There were two

witnesses, one is P.W.1 Ashok Kodape and another one panch

witness/P.W.2 Krishnarao Junghare. So far as P.W.2 is concerned, he

has no personal knowledge as to the contents of the complaint given by

P.W.1 himself, as when the pancha appeared at the office of A.C.B.

complaint was already prepared and was subsequently referred to the

panchas for their perusal. Moreover, there is variance in the contents of

the complaint vis-a-vis the oral evidence of P.W.1 complainant. In the

complaint, it is mentioned that initially demand by the appellant/accused

was for an amount of Rs.500/- and it was then reduced to Rs.400/- and

out of that amount, Rs.200/- were paid to the accused in March, 1992.

As against this, in the substantive evidence of P.W.1, it is brought on

record that the accused initially demanded Rs.500/- and at that time the

complainant told him that the complainant was not in a position to pay

apeal339.03.J.odt 14/23

Rs.500/-. On this, the accused reduced the demand to Rs.200/- to which

the complainant agreed to pay the same. Thereafter the accused asked

him to bring an amount of Rs.200/- and assured that thereafter he will

forward the pension papers. On this, the complainant went to Anti

Corruption Bureau Office and lodged his report, which is Exhibit-17.

There is total silence regarding incident since March 1992 to November

1992 in the substantive evidence of P.W.1. This aspect, in the opinion

of this Court, was not properly appreciated by the Special Court and no

much emphasis was placed on this material difference of reducing the

amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.200/-.

14. On the above aspect, the following authorities are cited

before this Court on behalf of the appellant:-

(a) 1990 (1) Crimes 609 : State of U.P. vs. Ram Asrey.

(b) 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1201 (S.C.): V. Venkata Subbarao vs.

State represented by Inspector of Police A.P.

15. By pointing out the ratio of the above authorities, it is

submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Special Court should not

have raised presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of

apeal339.03.J.odt 15/23

Corruption Act, 1988 in absence of proof of specific demand by the

accused. Again on this aspect, reliance was placed on the following

authorities as to acceptance of the defence of the accused on

preponderance of the probabilities and that no necessity for the accused

to establish his defence beyond reasonable doubt. The said authorities

are as under:

(i) AIR 1977 SC 666 : Trilok Chand Jain vs. State of Delhi.

(ii) AIR 1979 SC 1455 : Man Singh vs. Delhi Administration.

16. Again on the probable defence of the appellant/accused as to

money received by him for lawful collection, benefit of doubt should

have been given in favour of the accused, the following authority is cited

before this Court:-

(1) 1997 (1) Crimes 186 (SC) : Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan

Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra.

17. During the court of arguments, it is submitted on behalf of

the appellant/accused that as the Court had accepted at least taking of

Rs.170/- apparently, for the purpose of arrears of Group Insurance

Scheme and for xerox copying charges what would remain is a meagre

apeal339.03.J.odt 16/23

amount of Rs.30/- (Rs.200 - Rs.170). Hence, ratio of the following

authority was taken shelter of on behalf of the appellant mentioning that

where the gratification is too trivial, the Court may decline to draw

presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

said authority is as under:

(1) (2009) 6 SCC 587 : A. Subair vs. State of Kerala.

18.

On the delay in delivering the pension case papers of

Namdeo Kodape, it is submitted that till September 1993 there was

restriction and specific directions from the higher officer not to give the

pensionery benefits to said employee on account of dispute regarding

his real birth date and also regarding the action of removing from

service. Even after the receipt of letter dated 27.09.2003 from the

Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, giving directions to clear

the file of employee, again there was impediment in clearing the papers

as a letter dated 30.11.1993 was addressed by the superior officer of

the appellant/accused to Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.

By said letter dated 30.11.1993 clarification was asked by Block

Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti as to which retirement date was to

apeal339.03.J.odt 17/23

be considered. Though, it is seen from the letter of the Education

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur dated 27.09.1993 that the employee

was retired on 30.09.1991, in fact, no need for getting clarification vide

letter dated 30.11.1993. However, said letter dated 30.11.1993 was

issued by the superior officer of the appellant/accused and it was not

within the authority of the appellant to continue further with processing

the pension papers when his superior had asked for clarification from

the Education officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. In any event, there

was definitely dispute as to which date of retirement to be accepted and

definitely there was arrears to be recovered from the salary already paid

to Namdeo Kodape. In any event, it must be said that the alleged delay

in processing the pension papers was definitely beyond the control of

the appellant/accused and this aspect should have been considered by

the Special Court in favour of the accused.

19. So far as the defence as to sanctioning authority not applying

its mind prior to giving sanction, substantive evidence of P.W.3

Shyamlal Goyal is brought to the notice of this Court. He was Chief

Executive Officer in the year 1994 at Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur and he

apeal339.03.J.odt 18/23

was the competent authority to remove the appellant/accused from

service. The following portion from the evidence of said witness was

brought to the notice of this Court, which reads as under:

"I had received proposal for according sanction for launching

prosecution against the accused in respect of offence under

Prevention of Corruption Act. Said proposal was received to

me from A.C.B., Nagpur. Along with proposal I had received

all the papers of investigation. So also I had received draft

sanction order. After perusing the draft sanction order, and

after making necessary changes and correction of

grammatical mistakes I passed the sanction order. I also

examined the investigation papers received along with the

proposal."

20. Much emphasis was placed on behalf of the appellant that

only necessary changes and corrections of grammatical mistakes were

done by the sanctioning authority and then he passed the Sanction

Order. He was already sent the draft sanction order by A.C.B. This

clearly indicates non application of mind, further argued. Though in

cross-examination P.W.3 denied the suggestion given to him that he did

not examine the investigation papers before passing sanction order and

mechanically passed sanction order, the effect created by the

apeal339.03.J.odt 19/23

substantive evidence in the examination-in-chief still remains. Also

through this witness, it is brought on record by the defence that no

departmental inquiry was initiated against the appellant/accused on the

allegation of acceptance of bribe. Again through this witness it was

brought on record that dispute in respect of date of birth of Mr. Kodape,

the matter was referred back to Panchayat Samiti for verification and

that Mr. Kodape had mentioned wrong date while preparing service

record. In the opinion of this Court, this argument and defence as to

sanctioning authority not applying its mind properly has not been dealt

with in proper perspective by the trial Court.

21. Counter to the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the following

authority by submitting that demand and acceptance of bribe once

proved, these are the incriminating circumstances against the accused.

The said authority is as under:

2010(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.)513 : State represented by CBI,

Hydrabad vs. G. Prem Raj.

22. On this aspect, it is held by this Court as discussed earlier

apeal339.03.J.odt 20/23

that there is doubt as to the exact demand made by the accused

considering the variance in the statement in the compliant and the

evidence before the trial Court. Moreover, the substantive evidence of

complainant and also that of panch witness/P.W.2 discussed by the

Special Court in para 22 of the impugned judgment, indicates that there

was no demand by the accused. However, complainant himself told

that he brought the amount as asked by the accused. This relevant

portion from the substantive evidence of complainant is reproduced as

under:

"Then myself and the person who was sent with me went to

the office of accused. Accused was present in the office. That

day Chief Officer had visited Panchayat Samiti. When we met

the accused. Accused asked us to wait outside the office and

said that he will come out after some time. So we came out of

the office of accused and stayed outside. After some time

Chief Officer left Panchayat Samiti Office. Then accused

himself came to call us. Then we followed the accused. Then I

said to the accused that I have brought the amount as asked

by the accused. On that accused asked me to pay the

amount. On that I paid the amount from my pocket of bush

shirt, to the accused. The accused accepted the same."

apeal339.03.J.odt 21/23

23. On this aspect, substantive evidence of P.W.2 is as

under:

"Then myself and the complainant were sent to the office of

the accused. Accordingly myself and complainant went to the

office of Panchayat Samiti. When we reached there accused

Jumde was present in the office. Complainant told me by

pointing out to the accused that he was Mr. Jumde. Besides

that there was name plate of Mr. Jumde. Myself and

complainant went to Jumde. Complainant asked Jumde as to

what had happened about the case of the complainant. That

time accused asked the complainant to wait outside by saying

that he was busy as some higher officer of Zilla Parishad had

come to Panchayat Samiti. On that myself and the

complainant came out of the office of accused. We were

waiting there. Afterwards the officer of Zila Parishad left

Panchayat Samiti office by car. Then accused came out of the

office to us. He asked us to accompany him for tea. On that

we went to have tea near tea stall near the compound of

office. Then we had tea Kodape paid the amount i.e. bill of

tea. Then we went to toilet. I was with them. There the

complainant asked the accused about his work. Then

complainant said to the accused that he has brought the

amount. On that accused asked the complainant to pay it. On

that complainant paid that amount to the accused."

apeal339.03.J.odt 22/23

24. After going through the substantive evidence of complainant

and panch witness, it is further observed by the Special Court in para 23

of the judgment, as follows:

"From evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that evidence of

these witnesses is consistent on the material points. From the

evidence of these witnesses it is clear that accused made

demand of amount. On that complainant gave the amount to

the accused."

25. In fact this finding as to demand by the accused on the day of

the trap is not inconsonance with the substantive evidence of the

witnesses, as mentioned above, as to what had happened on the day of

the trap. It must be said that the Special Court had not appreciated the

said evidence in proper perspective and fallen in error.

26. Considering the overall effect of the evidence led before the

Special Court, it must be said that the defence pressed on behalf of the

appellant/accused was probable and acceptable on preponderance of

the probabilities and in that event the benefit of doubt should have been

given in favour of the accused.

27. In the result, the present appeal succeeds and same is

apeal339.03.J.odt 23/23

accordingly allowed. The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and

order dated 07.05.2003 is quashed and set aside. The fine amount, if

already paid, shall be refunded to the present appellant, who is

substituted in place of the original appellant/accused since deceased.

JUDGE

NIKHARE