Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Murlidhar Shridhar Vedpathak & ... on 20 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Jadhav
1 31.apeal383.02.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant.
Versus
1 Murlidhar Shridhar Vedpathak,
(Appeal abated as per Court's
order dated 28/1/16).
2 Tanaji Maruti Bhondawe
Age 34 years, Occ. Service,
Resident at Rawet,
Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune. ... Respondents.
---
Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.
Mr. Ganesh M. Mohite, advocate for respondent No. 2.
---
CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J
DATE : APRIL 20, 2016
JUDGMENT :
1 The State being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed
by the Special Judge, Pune in Special Case No. 15 of 1993 dated
29/11/2001 thereby acquitting the respondents of the offence
punishable under Section 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has preferred this Appeal.
Talwalkar 1/7
2 31.apeal383.02.sxw
2 During the pendency of the appeal, learned Counsel for the
respondent has filed on record the death certificate of Murlidhar
Vedprakash who is respondent No. 1 issued by Pimpri-Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation to the effect that the respondent No. 1 has
expired on 3/2/2010. In view of this, the appeal as against
respondent No. 1 stands abated.
3 As far as respondent No.2 is concerned, it is the case of the
prosecution that the respondent No. 2 happened to be working as
driver of the respondent No. 1. Due to pendency of this appeal, the
respondent No. 2 has been denied increment, promotion and other
service benefits although he is still in service.
4 Such of the facts necessary for decision of this appeal are as
follows :
(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant Bapu
Dattoba Malshetti was a contractor who was entrusted with the work
of renovation of the house of Vijay Dharashivkar of Survey
Talwalkar 2/7
3 31.apeal383.02.sxw
No.110/1/23 at Rahatni Kalewadi for Rs. 2, 50,000/-. That Vijay
Dharashivkar had paid an amount of Rs. 1,76,000/- to the
complainant i.e. Shri Malshetti towards part-payment of the
construction cost.
(ii) It is alleged that on 25/2/1995 original accused No. 1 had
visited the site of construction/renovation and had apprised the
contractor that the work undertaken by him was illegal and without
the permission of the Municipal Corporation and therefore, original
accused No. 1 had asked the complainant Shri Malshetti to
discontinue the work forthwith. A notice was also issued to that
effect.
(iii) The accused No. 1 had made a second visit on 8/5/1995. The
construction work was in progress. That the accused No. 1 had
apprised the contractor that he should discontinue the work forthwith
or he would be constrained to demolish the said structure. The
second notice was served upon the complainant. A notice was also
issued to Shri Vijay Dharashivkar.
(iv) It is the case of the prosecution that on 15/5/1995 original
accused No. 1 had been to the site of the construction. There were
Talwalkar 3/7
4 31.apeal383.02.sxw
implements on the said site. It is alleged that the accused No. 1 had
demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards illegal gratification for
permitting the complainant to continue with his work. The amount
of gratification was negotiated and it was decided that the contractor
shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/-.
(v) That since Malshetti was not inclined to pay the same, he had
approached to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau.
(vi) The Anti Corruption Bureau had requested Bhaskar Urankar and
Vasant Chavan to act as panchas. According to the prosecution, trap
was successful.
(vii) It is alleged that at the time of exchanging the amount, the
present respondent No. 2 who happens to be the driver of the
original accused No. 1 was initially seated in the car. He was
summoned by the accused No.1. After accepting the gratification the
accused No. 1 handed over the said tainted currency notes to the
respondent No. 2 and had directed him to keep it in safe custody.
5 The learned Counsel for the respondent rightly submitted that
the learned Special Judge had appreciated the fact that the sanction
Talwalkar 4/7
5 31.apeal383.02.sxw
accorded for the prosecution of the accused was not in accordance
with law and it has caused great prejudice to the accused. Secondly,
it is rightly submitted that the original accused No. 2 had no
knowledge of the demand of the gratification made by the accused
No. 1 to the complainant Malshetti. Even when the accused No. 1
had handed over the amount to the accused No. 2, he had no
knowledge about any transaction whatsoever and therefore, it cannot
be said that the accused No. 2 had aided, abetted, facilitated or had
shared any common intention with the accused No. 1 to obtain illegal
gratification in discharge of official duties.
6 Needless to say that demand is sine qua non for acceptance. In
the present case, it is not the allegation of the prosecution that the
accused No. 2 at any stage had demanded the gratification or was
present with the accused No. 1 at the time of demanding or accepting
the gratification. That only because he was working as a driver with
the original accused No. 1, it cannot be said that he had any intention
or knowledge about the demand and acceptance of the gratification.
In any case, learned Sessions Judge has recorded justifiable reasons
Talwalkar 5/7
6 31.apeal383.02.sxw
for acquitting the original accused No. 1. The said findings do not call
for any interference.
7 There is a specific admission by the original complainant to the
effect which reads as follows :
"It is true that construction should not be demolished and hence
I had to go and filed complaint. It is true that due to complaint
construction was not demolished."
8 It is a matter of record that the original accused No. 2 had not
accepted the amount from the complainant but he was entrusted with
the amount by the accused No. 1 and hence, it is clear that on the face
of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there was no occasion to
even draw presumption against the accused No. 2 under Section 20 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the appeal filed by
the State being sans merit deserves to be dismissed.
9 The findings recorded by the learned Special Judge do not call
for any interference. Hence, Judgment and Order passed by Special
Talwalkar 6/7
7 31.apeal383.02.sxw
Judge, Pune in Special Case No. 15 of 1993 dated 29/11/2001 is
hereby maintained. The appeal is dismissed and disposed of
accordingly.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J)
Talwalkar 7/7
