Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah.Thr.Acb Yavatmal vs Bhikaji Balaji Ingle on 1 May, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 appeal277.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2004
State of Maharashtra,
Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
Yavatmal ...... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
Bhikaji Balaji Ingle,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o. Jawaharnagar, Plot No.6,
Shrirampur, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal ......RESPONDENT
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. S.M.Ukey, Additional Public Prosecutor for
Appellant / State
Mr.K.S.Narwade, Adv. for the Respondent.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 17.5.2017.
2 appeal277.04.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 This is an appeal preferred against the
judgment and order dated 22.1.2004 delivered in Special
Case No. 1/2000 by the learned Special Judge & Additional
District & Session Judge, Pusad, district Yavatmal, thereby
acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(i) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2 The allegations against the respondent were
that in the year 1999, he was Talathi of village Gahuli. On
6.6.1999, he was approached by the complainant with a
request to issue him 7/12 extract, Form No. 8 and the map
of his land bearing Gut No. 199 in which, he had to plant
orange saplings by obtaining some financial aid from the
Panchayat Samiti. The respondent, however, told the
complainant, Dnyaneshwar Bomble, that the complainant
would have to pay him an amount of Rs. 500/- for this
work and unless the demand was satisfied, the documents
3 appeal277.04.odt
would not be issued to the complainant. There were some
negotiations between the complainant and the respondent
and it was agreed that the complainant would pay an
amount of Rs. 200/- to the respondent on the next day i.e.
on 7.6.1999 and remaining amount of Rs. 300/- after the
first installment of the financial aid, was received by the
complainant. However, as the complainant was not willing
to pay any such amount, the complainant lodged a report
with the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Yavatmal.
The report was registered and it was decided to catch the
respondent red handed while accepting the bribe amount.
All the necessary preparations for trapping the respondent
were made. The trap was actually set on 7.6.1999 and it
was proved to be successful when the tainted currency
notes of Rs. 300/- were recovered from the shirt pocket of
the respondent. Necessary panchanamas were prepared.
Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After
completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed
against the respondent. He was prosecuted for the offences
4 appeal277.04.odt
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section
13(i) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3 On merits of the case, the learned Special
Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove the prior
demand, which was so essential for proving the offence of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and also an
offence of abuse of official position punishable under
Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(i) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and therefore, acquitted the respondent of
the same by its judgment and order dated 22.1.2004.
4 Shri. S.M. Ukey learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the learned
Special Judge has not correctly appreciated the facts
established on record by the prosecution. He submits that,
there was no reason for the complainant to have filed a
complaint against the respondent, had there been no
demand of bribe really made by the respondent. He further
submits that of course there were some admissions given by
5 appeal277.04.odt
complainant, P.W. 1 - Dnyaneshwar, but those admissions
should have been considered by the learned Special Judge
in the context of the entire evidence available on record
and since that was not done by the learned Special Judge, a
grave illegality has been committed by the learned Special
Judge in acquitting the respondent.
5 No one has appeared on behalf of the
respondent. However, in order to appreciate the argument
advanced on behalf of the prosecution, I have carefully
gone through record of the case including the impugned
judgment and order. I find that the conclusions recorded
by the learned Special Judge could not be termed as
representing a perverse view for the reason that all of them
appear to be based upon the evidence available on record
and do not emanate from something which is not available
on record. These conclusions also appear to be logically
arising from the proved facts and therefore, it would not be
possible for this Court to upset the findings recorded by the
learned Special Judge.
6 appeal277.04.odt
6 The learned Special Judge has particularly
found that in a case like the present, it was necessary for
the prosecution to prove prior demand and not just the
acceptance of the tainted currency notes which were stated
to be given as bribe by the complainant, P.W. 1 -
Dnyaneshwar to the respondent. The learned Special Judge
has found that there were vital admissions given by P.W. 1
during the course of his cross-examination which had the
result of contradicting his own version relating to prior
demand allegedly made by the respondent.
7 In the examination in chief, the complainant
has stated that in the evening of 6.7.1999, the respondent
demanded from him an amount of Rs. 500/- which was
after negotiations agreed to be split into two parts out of
which one part of Rs. 200/- was agreed to be paid to the
respondent on the next day i.e. 7th day of month of July
1999 and the second part of Rs. 300/- was agreed to be
paid after receipt of the financial aid from Panchayat
7 appeal277.04.odt
Samiti. However, in his cross examination, P.W. 1 -
Dnyaneshwar admits that what was told to him by the
respondent was relating to the fees levied for issuance of
copies of 7/12 extract and other revenue documents and
that it was made clear by the respondent that those copies
could not be issued to the complainant by the respondent
free of cost.
8 Then, there are further admissions given in the
cross examination by P.W. 1 - Dnyaneshwar. He says that
when he reached the house of the accused on the day of the
trap i.e. 6.7.1999, he shook hands with the accused i.e.
respondent and then gave him an amount of Rs. 200/-
which was pocketed by the respondent. This admission
only shows that the amount of Rs. 200/- was handed over
to the respondent without there being any demand about
the same from the respondent. In the examination in chief,
P.W.1 - Dnyaneshwar has stated that when he met the
respondent on the day of the trap i.e. 7.6.1999, two persons
were already present there and the respondent told him
8 appeal277.04.odt
that he would first attend to those two other persons by
giving them copies of the 7/12 extracts and thereafter he
would perform the work of the complainant. He has
further stated that accordingly, the copies of the 7/12
extract were indeed given by the respondent to those other
two persons and then the respondent turned his attention
to the complainant and asked him to pay him the bribe
amount. Thus, the complainant in his cross-examination
states a story entirely different from the one stated in his
examination in chief and obviously, only one of them and
not the either could be true. The conflict between them
could be resolved by other corroborative evidence. But,
there is no other evidence brought on record by the
prosecution to enable the Court to accept one of them as
true and reject the other of them as false.
9 In these circumstances, the learned Special
Judge has found that the prosecution has failed to prove
the prior demand in the instant case and concluded that its
benefit must go to the respondent, and rightly so.
9 appeal277.04.odt
10 In the result, I am of the opinion that the view
taken by the learned Special Judge is possible. Therefore,
as per the settled law, it would be impermissible for this
Court to make any interference with the impugned
judgment and order. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE
belkhede
