Bombay High Court
Dr. Ramchandra S/O Munjaji Bhise vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 21 October, 2015
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1197 OF 2015
Dr. Ramchandra S/o Munjaji Bhise
Age : 40 years, Occu : Vice Principal
Digambarrao Bindu Arts and Commerce
College at Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar,
Dist. Nanded. ...PETITIONER
(Orig. accused)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau at Nanded,
Dist. Nanded.
3. The Incharge of Study Center
Yeshwantrao Chavan Open University,
At Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded
And Principal of Digambarrao Bindu Arts
and Commerce College at Bhokar,
Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.
4. Digambarrao Bindu Smarak Samit
Bhokar, at Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar,
Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary.
...RESPONDENTS
...
CORAM: R.M.BORDE
AND
P.R.BORA, JJ.
***
2 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
Date of reserving the
Judgment:29/9/2015
Date of pronouncing the
Judgment: 21/10/2015
Shri R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate, h/f Shri Ravindra B.Narwade
Patil, Adv., for petitioner.
Shri S.G.Karlekar, AGP for respondent State.
Shri Nitin B.Suryawanshi, Advocate, for respondent no.3.
***
JUDGMENT: (Per P.R.Bora, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard
forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for
respective parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition for
quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.25/2015,
registered against him at Bhokar Police Station for the
offenses under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The petitioner is presently working as Vice
Principal of Digambarrao Bindu Arts and Commerce
College at Bhokar, Taluka Bhokar, District Nanded
(hereinafter referred to as `the college'). On 30 th of June,
2015, one student viz. Sunil Bhaurao Madilwad approached
3 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nanded, and informed that he
is pursuing his education as a student of Yashwantrao
Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik (hereinafter
referred to as `the Open University') center of which is
being run at the College at Bhokar. The said student
complained that, for admission to the third year of the
Bachelore of Arts Course, though the admission fee to be
paid to the Open University is Rs.800/-, Principal Shri
Chavan and Vice Principal Shri Bhise of the college are
unauthorizedly asking for additional amount of Rs.200/- of
which no receipt will be given. It was, therefore, the
contention of the said student that the amount of Rs.200/-
was being asked as a bribe from him which he was
unwilling to pay but was compelled to pay the same since
its non payment would result in cancellation of his
admission. On lodgement of such complaint by the said
student, trap was laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau,
Nanded, and the further process was carried out.
4. As is revealing from the contents of the FIR,
prior to laying of the trap, the conversation in between
complainant Madilwad and Vice Principal Shri Bhise was
4 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
tape-recorded. The prosecution case further demonstrates
that one Pralhad Suryawanshi, Clerk in the Study Center of
the Open University, accepted the amount of Rs.200/- on
behalf of Vice Principal Shri Bhise in presence of the Panch
witnesses and was trapped by the Officers of the Anti
Corruption Bureau, Nanded, while accepting the said
amount. The Officers of Anti Corruption Bureau then
performed usual formalities of preparing Panchnama, etc.
It is also revealed that the Officers of Anti Corruption
Bureau conducted search of the house of Vice Principal
Shri Bhise in presence of the Panch witnesses. Shri Bhise
was arrested and was produced before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhokar. He was released on bail on the
same day.
5. Heard Shri R.N.Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Shri S.G.Karlekar, learned
A.G.P. Perused the FIR, pre-trap and post-trap
panchnamas, the transcription of the tape-recorded
conversation and all other documents placed on record by
the petitioner and the prosecution.
5 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
6. Petitioner has, in toto, denied the allegations
made against him of demanding and accepting the amount
of Rs.200/- from the complainant by way of bribe. It is
the specific contention of the petitioner that the amount of
Rs.200/- accepted by Shri Pralhad Suryawanshi was
towards the Center Development Charges and the same
was being officially and authorizedly collected from the
students of the Open University. It is also the contention
of the petitioners that proper account is being maintained
of the said amount.
7. In order to substantiate the contentions so
raised, the petitioner has filed on record several
documents. The petitioner has placed on record circular
dated 23rd November, 2001, issued by the Department of
Higher and Technical Education, State of Maharashtra,
which pertains to the assistance from the educational
institutions to Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open
University for conducting its various courses. Clause (iv)
of the said circular provides that the Government approved
6 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
Colleges or educational institutions, through which the
courses of the Open University are conducted, shall make
available to the students of the Open University the
facilities available at their college/institution like library,
laboratory, etc. and in such case, it would be open for the
said College or institution to collect the adequate fees from
the said students.
8. As submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, in view of the aforesaid circular dated 23rd
November, 2001, the management of the college, in its
Board meeting held on 15th August, 2014,, resolved to
collect a fees of Rs.200/- from the students of the Open
University who may opt for the facilities like library,
laboratory, etc. The aforesaid amount was to be collected
by way of donation and was to be used for development of
the Study Center set up for the students of the Open
University. In the resolution itself it has been clarified
that the fees / contribution of Rs.200/-, as aforesaid, will
be voluntary. The petitioner has placed on record copy of
the said resolution.
7 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
9. The petitioner has also furnished on record copy
of the notice dated 20th of June, 2015, displayed on the
Notice Board of the College informing to the Students of
the Open University about the contribution to be paid by
the students to the tune of Rs.200/- towards the Center
Development Charges. It is clarified in the said circular
that the said amount of Rs.200/- is being collected for
providing practical material, library facilities and for
making available the cold drinking water to the said
students. The notice also contains an averment that the
contribution is optional and not compulsory.
10. Further, the petitioner has kept on record the
xerox copy of the register maintained in respect of
admissions of the students to the courses of the Open
University containing certain particulars in the tabular
form. We would refer to the said particulars at the
appropriate stage.
11. The petitioner has then produced on record the
particulars of the student-wise and course-wise fees
8 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
deposited in the Bank account on 29th and 30th of June,
2015. The petitioner has also placed on record the xerox
copies of the Passbook pertaining to Account
No.5413907770-3 at Maharashtra Gramin Bank, branch at
Bhokar which is in the name of Yashwantrao Chavan
Maharashtra Open University - Digambarrao Bindu college,
Bhokar. The Bank slips by which certain amounts were
deposited in the aforesaid Bank account on 29th and 30th
of June, 2015 too are filed. The petitioner has also
submitted on record copies of few receipts issued for the
amount of Rs.800/- and Rs.200/-, respectively.
12. It is significant to note that the documents so
filed on record by the petitioner and the contentions raised
with reference to the said documents by him in the petition
have not been controverted, denied or disputed by the
prosecution.
13. Moreover, Dr. Punjab Anandrao Chavan, the
Principal of Digambarrao Bindu College at Bhokar who is
respondent no.3 in the present petition, in his affidavit in
reply has referred to almost all aforesaid documents and
9 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
has confirmed the authenticity of the said documents.
Shri Chavan, in his affidavit in reply has categorically
stated that Shri Pralhad Suryawanshi was collecting the
fees of Rs.200/- from the students of the Open University
towards the charges for making certain facilities available
to the said students at the Study Center of the College.
Shri Chavan has further stated that the amount of
Rs.200/- was and is being accepted from the students of
the Open University on the strength of clause (iv) of the
Government Circular dated 23rd November, 2001, and in
accordance with the resolution dated 15th August, 2014,
passed in the meeting of the management board of the
College in that regard. Further, Shri Chavan has given
justification for collecting the amount of Rs.200/- from the
students of the Open University. He has also stated about
the maintenance of the separate Bank account for
depositing the amount of Rs.200/- accepted from the
students. Shri Chavan has further clarified that payment
of Rs.200/- was optional and has pointed out the fact of
some of the students not paying the said amount.
14. We have carefully considered the aforesaid
10 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
documents. Having regard to the circular dated 23rd
November, 2001, issued by the Government of
Maharashtra, and the resolution passed on 15th August,
2014, in the meeting of the management board of the
college, there remains no doubt that the amount of
Rs.200/- was being authorizedly collected by Shri Pralhad
Suryawanshi from the students of the Open University and
accordingly,
the same was also received by Shri
Suryawanshi from complainant Madilwad on the date of
the incident i.e. 1st of July, 2015. The question arises,
can the said amount be termed as bribe or illegal
gratification when it was being collected authorizedly and
on the basis of the aforesaid Government circular and the
resolution passed by the college management in that
regard. The inevitable answer is, "NO".
15. Explanation (c) to Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, defines the term "Legal
Remuneration" which reads thus:
"(c) "Legal remuneration". The words "legal
remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration
which a public servant can lawfully demand, but
include all remuneration which he is permitted by the
11 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
Government, or the organization, which he serves, to
accept. "
The documents filed on record by the petitioner clearly
establish that the collection of Rs.200/- was permissible by
virtue of the Government Resolution dated 23rd
November, 2001, and the resolution passed on the
strength of the said Government Resolution in the meeting
of the management board of the college held on 15th
August, 2014.
ig It is thus evident that the amount of
Rs.200/- obtained by Shri Suryawanshi from the
complainant Madilwad falls within the ambit of legal
remuneration.
16. In the above circumstances, we have no
hesitation in holding that the amount of Rs.200/- so
received by Shri Suryawanshi from the complainant
Madilwad on the date of the incident was not bribe or
illegal gratification. No prosecution for the offenses
punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can,
therefore, be maintained against the petitioner and
deserves to be quashed. It would be the abuse of process
12 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
of law to allow the said proceedings to continue further.
17. If somebody approaches the Police with some
complaint, it is true that the Police cannot, at the
threshold, refuse to accept the said complaint. However, it
does not mean that the Police shall accept whatever is
stated in the said complaint to be gospel truth and initiate
criminal action against the person named in the said
complaint without even prima-facie verifying the
genuineness of the allegations made in the said complaint.
In the instant case, it is apparently revealed that Shri
Sanjay Venkatesh Kulkarni, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nanded, who received the
complaint and took the further action against the
petitioner, has committed the grave mistake of not
verifying the genuineness of the allegations made in the
complaint against the petitioner before initiating the
further actions..
We have carefully perused the FIR lodged by said
Shri Kulkarni wherein he has reproduced the gist of the
complaint made to him by Shri Madilwad. The complaint
made by said Shri Madilwad, even if accepted as it is, does
13 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
not reveal any offense under the Prevention of Corruption
Act. Merely because the complainant has alleged that
receipt is not being given of Rs.200/-, Shri Kulkarni
(respondent no.2), on that basis, should not have jumped
to the conclusion that the amount is bribe or illegal
gratification. It was not the case of complainant Shri
Madilwad that though the amount of Rs.200/- is stated to
be towards building fund, in fact, under the garb of
building fund, the petitioner was to receive the said
amount illegally and unauthorizedly for his own benefit.
In absence of any such specific allegation by complainant
Madilwad, the fact remains that, rightly or wrongly, the
amount, which was being collected, was towards building
fund. Whether collection of such building fund is legal,
just and proper is quite a different issue and the
complainant was having every right to object for the same,
and agitate on that issue. However, acceptance of such an
amount even if held unjust, will not come within the
purview of bribe or illegal gratification. In the
circumstances, it appears to us that before taking any
drastic step of laying trap, etc., the respondent no.2 must
have carried out the preliminary enquiry. Had he done
14 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
so, perhaps, he would have come to know that the amount
of Rs.200/- is being officially and authorizedly collected
and there is no substance in the allegation made by the
complainant that the said amount is being asked for as a
bribe.
18. The material on record reveals that an attempt
was certainly made by respondent no.2 to verify the
demand as alleged by the complainant. For that purpose,
Respondent no.2 got tape-recorded the conversation
between complainant Madilwad and the present petitioner.
In the FIR, respondent no.2 has noted that after hearing
the taperecorded pre-trap conversation between the
complainant and the present petitioner, he was convinced
that the amount of Rs.200/- demanded by the petitioner
was illegal gratification for himself and he, therefore, took
the decision to lay a trap to apprehend the petitioner red
handed. It is, therefore, necessary to look into the said
conversation, the transcription of which is available on
record; it reads thus:
ykp ekx.kh iMrkG.kh o lkiGk iqoZ iapukek iapukek [email protected]@2015 iku dz-6
mi izk-fHkls fdrh gS ex
rdzkjnkj va
mi izk-fHkls fdrh gS ex
15 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
rdzkjnkj fo|kihBkph rj vkBls :i;s fQl gS uk
mi izk-fHkls lsUVj MsOgyiesaV ps ?ksr vlyrhy uk [email protected]& :i;s
rdzkjnkj vkW
mi izk-fHkls fo|kihB fodkl fu/kh dkWyst
rdzkjnkj dkWystkryh
mi izk-fHkls gkW
rdzkjnkj ikorh HksVrs dh ikorh nsr ukgh Eg.kkyk; R;kauk
mi izk-fHkls ikorh nsr ukgh vkEgh
rdzkjnkj gkW ikorh nsr ukgh uk
mi izk-fHkls ikorh ulrsp R;kaph
rdzkjnkj ikorh dqB ulrs dk
mi izk-fHkls Dk; vMpu dk; rqyk
rdzkjnkj ukgh lj rsp fopkjk;p gksr rs fo|kihBkph fQl 800 :i;s gk; rs 200 :i;s
tkLr
mi izk-fHkls ig cjkscj gk;u dkWyst P;k fodklk lkBh nsr ukgh dk; rq
rdzkjnkj dkWystP;k fodklklkBh nsoko ykxrs
mi izk-fHkls gka
rdzkjnkj ex rqEgh ikorh dk nsr ukgh ex ikorh dk nsr ukgh
mi izk-fHkls ikorh nsrhy uk rqyk uarj nsrhy uk vWMeh'ku rs laxG >kY;koj rqyk vf/kp dls
nsrhy rqyk
rdzkjnkj ikorhp ukgh Eg.kkysruk lj R;ku ikorh HksVr ukgh Eg.kkysr gks; lj
mi izk-fHkls rldl ters js
bZrj gWyk cksyk
mi izk-fHkls ikorh
bZrj Lj dsysr R;ka;u
mi izk-fHkls dks.kh dsys
bZrj vka ns'kikaMs lkgsckauk rkacksGh lkgsckauk
mi izk-fHkls gkrkuh dl ters Eg.kko
bZrj dk gk; dh
mi izk-fHkls dkgh okVu lgh ?ks bZFk ns'kikaMsph bZFk v'kh ckjhd lgh
?ksoko ykxrs ukghrj ter ukgh
ykp ekx.kh iMrkG.kh o lkiGk iqoZ iapukek iapukek [email protected]@2015 iku dz-a7
rdzkjnkj gks; lj
mi izk-fHkls dk; vky rq>
rdzkjnkj izkpk;Z lj i.k ukghr uk
mi izk-fHkls gks vk; Mh uacj nsrks ---- pk
rdzkjnkj iq<P;ku vksiu -----
mi izk-fHkls ukgh rjh fopkrsuk R;kauk fopkjk cj vkMh uacj pqdyk ua frFk ckjhd
lgh R;kaph
16 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
bZrj ns'kikaM ljkaph
mi izk-fHkls gks lj lgh djk Eg.kko
bZrj vk;Mh uacj Vkdwu nsowu lgh djk Eg.kq
mi izk-fHkls lj djsDV vk; Mh uacj Vkdqu R;kaph ckjhd lgh djk Eg.kko ---- cksyk
ykxrs Eg.kako
bZrj cj
rdzkjnkj izkpk;Z lkgsc dks.k vkgs vkrk] pOgk.k lkgsc
mi izk-fHkls rs l/;k lqVhoj l/;k
rdzkjnkj fdrh fnol vkgsr lj
mi izk-fHkls nksu pkj fnol
rdzkjnkj nksu pkj fnol gkbZr dk; ex fo|kfiBkps gtkj :i;s
ig ?ksoqu vkyks lj
mi izk-fHkls vj Hkj csVk dk; Qjd iMyk; rqeP;k Hkkxkr ,so<h lqfo/kk miyC/k
>kyh dqB ukansMk xsyk vlrk rj 'kaHkj nksuls frdhVkyk ykxr ukgh
dk; vkEgh dk; [kkYyksr dk; rs iSls
rdzkjnkj [kkp; ukgh lj
mi izk-fHkls ¼vLi"V vkokt½ ,o< gS ifj{ksP;k osGsl MsLd clrk rqEgh lxGh
lqfo/kk n;k;y; uk dkWyst
rdzkjnkj ukgh rj rs ukgh lj
mi izk-fHkls ex dk; Qjd iMyk; 200 :i;s fnys vkiY;k ljD;k iksjkau rj
rdzkjnkj lj ikorh n;kua
mi izk-fHkls dk; djrq rq lkax cj
rdzkjnkj ikorh HksVyh ikghts uk lj
mi izk-fHkls fBd vkgs rqyk ikorh HksVk;pk gk iz'u uarjpk gk; i.k dk; Qjd
iMk;yk eyk lkaxcj ga ex ikorh ftFk HksVrh uk frFkp
vWMeh'ku ?;k;p
rdzkjnkj vl dk lj
mi izk-fHkls bZFk ?;k;pp ukgh vkiY;kyk tj vMp.k vlsy uk ex ?;k;pp ukgh
17 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
Upon reading the conversation as above, we find it
difficult to agree with the opinion formed by respondent no.2
that there was a demand from the present petitioner and
that it was in the shape of bribe. The aforesaid conversation
not at all reveals that any demand was made by the present
petitioner. On the contrary, it is discernible that the
complainant was well aware of the fact that for taking
admission to Third Year B.A.Course he will have to pay
Rs.1,000/- of which Rs.800/- was the fees of the Study
Center and Rs.200/- were to be paid to the college, which he
has named as building fund. It also appears that the
complainant was unwilling; rather, reluctant, to pay the said
amount of Rs.200/-. He, therefore, asked the petitioner
whether payment of Rs.200/- was necessary whereupon the
petitioner gave an understanding to him saying that when
college is making available so many facilities to the students,
the complainant shall not make any grievance in that regard
and it would be advisable that he pays the said amount. We
reiterate that whether asking of such amount towards Center
Development charges or building fund, was just and proper is
quite a different issue but, in any case, on that ground the
amount of Rs.200/- cannot be termed as bribe or illegal
18 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
gratification.
19. In so far as giving receipt of the amount of
Rs.200/- is concerned, the conversation demonstrates that
the petitioner has explained to the complainant that he will
certainly get the receipt once the admission process is
completed. From the further talk, it can be perceived that
the complainant irritated the petitioner by stretching the
issue of receipt of the amount of Rs.200/- and possibly that
was the reason that the petitioner told the complainant to
get the admission in such a college where he will get the
receipt. However, the conversation, read as a whole and
which must be read as a whole, no such inference is possible
that any demand was made by the petitioner or that the
amount of Rs.200/- was an unreceipted payment. Thus, no
further action was in fact warranted. Respondent no.2,
however, it seems that, was determined to proceed further
and hence though there was no sufficient material making
out any case against the petitioner, decided to lay a trap
and, accordingly laid the same.
20. The post trap panchnama shows that before
accepting the amount of Rs.200/- from the complainant, the
19 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
Center Assistant, namely, Pralhad Suryawanshi filled in
certain particulars in one register and asked the complainant
to tell his mobile number and noted it down in the column in
the said register reserved for the said purpose and then
asked the complainant to put his signature in the
said register in the column meant for such signature.
Accordingly, the complainant put his signature and only
thereafter, the amount of Rs.200/- was accepted by the said
Pralhad Suryawanshi. The averments of post trap
panchnama also reveal that the said register was seized by
the Police.
21. The post trap panchnama also reveals that
respondent no.2 seized few Bank slips and the particulars in
respect of the amounts deposited in the Bank account in the
name of the Study Center. As mentioned earlier, the
petitioner has filed on record copies of the said Bank slips as
well as the particulars of the amount deposited in the Bank.
22. As noted here-in-before, the petitioner has filed
on record the xerox copies of the extract of admission
register. We deem it appropriate to reproduce some portion
of one such extract which contains the particulars in respect
20 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
of complainant Madilwad. It reads thus:
T.Y. /B.A./B.Com
v- fon;kF;kZaph ukos v-dsanz fQl oxZ fnukad eksckbZy Lok{kjh
Ø-
75 tk/ko lfpu xkso/kZu [email protected]& [email protected]& T.Y. B.A. [email protected] 7875011865
76 ijluokM iaMhr ukjk;.k [email protected]& [email protected]& T.Y. [email protected] 9158551876
77 'kknqyokj Økarh ukxukFk [email protected]& [email protected]& T.Y. [email protected] 8888012558
78 'kknqyokj ujs'k mes'k [email protected]& [email protected]& T.Y. [email protected] 8888012558
79 eksjs lqeu fd'kujko [email protected]& [email protected]& T.Y. [email protected] 9271870714
80 ekatjs ekjksrh ukjk;.k [email protected]& [email protected]& T.Y. [email protected] 9158572764
81 ;snGs ikaMqjax nRrk [email protected]& [email protected]& T.Y. [email protected] 9156507581
82 jkBksM jkolkgsc ckiqjko [email protected]& [email protected]& T.Y. [email protected] 8007205152
83 enhyokM lqfuy HkkÅjko ig [email protected]& [email protected]& T.Y. [email protected] 8888936092
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
When the above register was filled in by said Suryawanshi in
presence of respondent no.2, and when the said register was
seized by the Police, it has to be assumed that respondent
no.2 must have gone through the contents of the said
register, which clearly show that a note has been taken in
the said register of receiving Rs.800/- towards the Study
Center Fees and Rs.200/- towards Center Development
Charges. Respondent no.2 ought to have realized that the
amount which is being taken note of, the amount which is
being deposited in the Bank, the amount of which an account
is maintained, the amount which is received under the
signature of the payee, cannot be an amount of bribe. As
such, respondent no.2 should have refrained from taking any
further action. Even at that stage, if respondent no.2 would
21 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
have enquired with the college administration, he would have
certainly come to know that the amount accepted from the
complainant was lawfully and authorizedly accepted.
23. In so far as the allegation that no receipt was
being given of the said amount of Rs.200/- is concerned, the
same is also noticed to be unsustainable in view of the fact
that the petitioner has placed on record few of such receipts
demonstrating the receipt of payment of Rs.200/-. In the
instant case, from the material on record, even no such
allegation can lie against the petitioner that Pralhad
Suryawanshi though received the amount of Rs.200/- did not
issue any receipt thereof in view of the fact that immediately
after receipt of the amount, said Suryawanshi was
apprehended. It is not the case of the prosecution and there
is no such material placed on record by the prosecution
showing that the receipt of the said amount of Rs.200/- was
demanded; but, was not issued. The circumstances show
that, at the relevant time, even the receipt of payment of
Rs.800/- was also not issued by said Pralhad Suryawanshi
and before that he was apprehended.
24. From the entire aforesaid episode, it is difficult,
22 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
nay impossible, to draw any such inference or reach to any
such conclusion that said Pralhad Suryawanshi had accepted
the amount of Rs.200/- by way of bribe or illegal
gratification. There is further nothing on record to show
that said Pralhad Suryawanshi had at any point of time
disclosed to the Police Officers that he was directed by Vice
Principal Bhise i.e. the present petitioner to collect such
amounts. Thus, there was absolutely no material with
respondent no.2 so as to proceed against the present
petitioner.
25. As discussed earlier, from the documents filed on
record which have remained uncontroverted, it has been fully
established that the amount of Rs.200/- was being collected
authorizedly and in no case it can be termed as bribe. We
have also referred to the pre-trap taperecorded conversation
from which also no wise and prudent man will draw any such
inference that any amount was demanded by the present
petitioner by way of bribe. We have also referred to the
averments in the post trap panchnama about the seizure of
the register and Bank slips and the particulars as regards to
the deposits made in the Bank which also lead to the only
inference that the amount which was received cannot be an
23 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
amount of bribe.
26. We reiterate that at no stage any material was
available against the petitioner so as to book him for the
offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Inspite of
that, respondent no.2 not only arrested the petitioner but
proceeded further to conduct the search of his house.
Taking house-search of a person is a serious action. No
doubt a Police Officer making an investigation possesses
power under Sub Section (1) of Section 165 of Criminal
Procedure Code to conduct such house-search, but there
must be reasonable grounds for believing that anything
necessary for the purpose of an investigation into an offence
which he is authorized to investigate cannot be otherwise
obtained except the house-search without undue dealy. It is
further imperative that such officer record in writing the
grounds of such belief to cause the search before he
proceeds for such action. In the instant case, no material is
produced to show that Respondent No.2, who caused and
conducted the search of the house of the petitioner had any
reasonable ground for believing that the things cannot in his
opinion be otherwise obtained except the house-search of
the petitioner without any delay. It is the matter of record
24 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
that nothing objectionable was revealed through the house-
search so conducted. The fact, however, remains that it
caused great embarrassment not only to the petitioner alone,
but also to his family members. The damage caused to the
reputation of the petitioner may never be compensated.
According to us, the action of Respondent No.2 to take
house-search of the petitioner was a perverse action.
27.
After having considered the material available on
record, it can be firmly inferred that the entire action so
taken against the petitioner was wholly unwarranted. Since
beginning, there was no material against the petitioner;
neither in the complaint lodged by Shri Madilwad nor in the
pre-trap panchnama nor in the tape-recorded conversation
and also not in the post trap panchnama. We are
constrained to observe that present is a glaring example of
the abuse of powers by the Police machinery. It was
brought to our notice by the learned Senior Counsel that on
the next day of the incident, there were news in almost every
newspaper regarding the trap conducted against the
petitioner and his subsequent arrest. It is explicit that
because of the present incident, the petitioner, who is Vice
Principal of one well known college, suffered great
25 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
humiliation and reputation was put in perils. The trauma
through which the petitioner and his family members might
have undergone at the relevant time can very well be
visualized. Without any fault on his part, the petitioner was
subjected to immense harassment, enormous humiliation,
mental pain and agony. We express our deep concern as
regards the arbitrary and high handed action noticed in the
present case at the hands of respondent no.2. On set of the
facts existing in the present case, according to us, even a
newly recruited Police Officer might not have thought of
taking any action against the petitioner. It is much
disturbing that such action is taken by an officer of the rank
of Dy. S.P. Conduct revealed of this officer has raised serous
doubt about his credentials as well as competence. We
expect that the higher Police Officers will take some remedial
measures in this regard so that the Police power is not used
as a tool of harassment and the ill motivated or incompetent
police officers do not play with the lives of the innocent
persons.
28. In view of the fact that the petitioner,
who holds the post of Vice Principal of one
College, and possesses a Doctoral degree, was
unnecessarily subjected to undergo the ordeal of
26 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
trap ... then arrest and thereafter the house
search, though the petitioner has got a private law
remedy to claim compensation, that may not deter
this Court to order for payment of compensation in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
The mental pain and agony suffered by the
petitioner may not be compensated in terms of
money, however, as a measure of caution to the
Police that no such instance recurs in future, we,
by way of compensation, award token amount of
Rs.25,000/- (Rs.twenty five thousand) to the
petitioner, to be paid by the State.
29. For the reasons discussed here-in-above,
(1) we quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime
No.25/2015, registered against petitioner at Bhokar Police
Station for the offenses under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
as we hold that no prima facie case under Sections 7, 12,
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, is made out under the prevailing facts
and circumstances of the case and hence proceedings in the
FIR (Crime No.25/2015) registered against the present
petitioner would ultimately result in abuse of process of the
27 CRI.W.P.NO.1197/2015
Court and so also huge wastage of time and energy of the
Court. Petition thus stands allowed.
(2) The State of Maharashtra shall pay Rs.25,000/-
as compensation to the petitioner within a period of three
months from the date of this order.
(3) The Registry shall forward copy of this order to
the Home Secretary of the State.
Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
...
AGP/Rane
