State Of Maharashtra vs Vijay Dattatraya Jagtap And One ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2395 Bom

                                        1/9                      211-apeal-709.2001.doc


nsc.
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.709 OF 2001


       The State of Maharashtra                    ...Appellant
                                                   (Orig. Complainant)

            Versus

       1.     Vijay Dattatraya Jagtap
              Age adult,
              Sub Engineer, M.S.E.B.,
              Hadapsar, Pune.
              R/at. S.V.Desai Adosa Society,
              Hadapsar, Pune.

       2.     Balasaheb Balchandra Godse
              Age - adult, Occ. Service            ...Respondents
              R/at Mundhava, Pune.                 (Orig. Accused Nos.1 to 2)



       Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the Appellant - State.

       Mr.Omkar Amberkar a/w Mr.Swapnil Mohite and Mr.S.R.Nargolkar i/b
       Ms.Meenakshi Sakhare, for the Respondent No.1.



                                 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 8th MAY, 2017

2/9 211-apeal-709.2001.doc

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant - State of Maharashtra

is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 8th June 2001, passed by

the learned Special Judge, Pune, in Special Case No.5 of 1990, by which,

the respondent no.1-accused came to be acquitted of the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act and respondent no.2 came to be acquitted of the offence

punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under

Sections 419 and 170 of the Indian Penal Code and both the respondents of

the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. A few facts, as are necessary, to decide the appeal are as

under:-

The complainant is one Ramkishor Ramkripal Gupta, a

resident of Hadapsar. According to him, he wanted to start an ice-candy

factory, in a portion of his house, for which he required a 3 phase electric

connection, for running 10 H.P Electric motor for the said intended ice-

candy factory. He has stated that for getting the said 3 phase electric

3/9 211-apeal-709.2001.doc

connection, he had submitted an application on 10 th March, 1989 in the

office of the M.S.E.B. Pursuant thereto, the Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B,

P.Z 'C' Zone, Pune, informed the complainant to contact the Assistant

Engineer at Hadapsar. After receipt of the said letter on 18 th March, 1989,

the complainant went to the M.S.E.B. Office, Hadapsar, but could not meet

the Engineer. On the next day i.e. on 19 th March, 1989, the complainant

again visited the M.S.E.B. office at Hadapsar at about 10.00 a.m, where he

was informed that he should contact respondent no.1. Accordingly, the

complainant met the respondent no.1 and enquired with him about the

electric connection. The respondent no.1 traced the file of the complainant

and informed him that he wanted to visit the site. Accordingly, the

complainant took the respondent no.1 to the site, for inspection. According

to the complainant, the respondent No.1 asked the complainant to drop him

at Gadital, Hadapsar and told him that he will have to pay Rs.1,500/- as

bribe if he wanted the work to be done immediately. The complainant

expressed his inability and stated that the demand was excessive and that

his financial condition was not good.

3. On 20th March, 1989, at about 9.30 a.m., the complainant

4/9 211-apeal-709.2001.doc

again visited the office of the respondent No.1 at Hadapsar. According to

the complainant, the respondent No.1 refused to accept an amount less then

Rs.1,500/- and informed the complainant that unless said amount was paid,

work will not be done. According to the complainant, there was one person

who was sitting near the table of respondent no.1 and that when the

complainant left the chamber of respondent no.1, the said person followed

him and asked him to pay the said amount. The said person is stated to be

respondent no.2. Admittedly, the said person was not in the employment of

M.S.E.B and is stated to be a wireman. According to the complainant,

thereafter there was some interaction again on 23 rd, 24th March, 1989 and

12th April, 1989. It is alleged that the respondent-accused had disclosed to

the complainant, that unless the demand was fulfilled, his work will not be

done. He has stated that finally he asked respondent no.1 to reduce the

amount and it was decided that an amount of Rs.1,000/- will be paid.

According to the complainant, he felt that unless the said bribe amount was

paid, his work will not be done and therefore, he approached the A.C.B

Office and lodged a complaint dated 13th April, 1989 (Exhibit - 53).

Accordingly, panchas were called on 15th April, 1989 and a trap was laid,

after giving instructions to both, the complainant and the panchas. The trap

5/9 211-apeal-709.2001.doc

which was laid for the said time was withdrawn and was thereafter again

effected at 4.00 p.m. and thereafter, again a pre-trap panchanama was

prepared. According to the complainant, the respondent-accused came to

the shop of the complainant. It is alleged that the respondent no.1 informed

the complainant, that the work had been done and that the respondent no.2

asked the complainant to complete his part of the work, pursuant to which,

the complainant pulled out the bribe amount and allegedly held it in front of

the respondent no.1. It is alleged that respondent no.1 asked the

complainant to hand over the said amount to respondent no.2. Thereafter, a

trap was effected and the respondent-accused were arrested. After

investigation, charge-sheet was filed as against the respondent-accused.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 3 witnesses,

PW1-Ramkishor Ramkripal Gupta, (complainant); PW2- Dattatray Laxman

Shinde (panch) and PW3-P.I. Pramod Ekanath Honrao (Investigating

Officer). The defence of the respondent-accused was that of total denial and

false implication. According to the respondent-accused, the complainant

had falsely implicated them in the said case. It was submitted that

respondent no.1 had visited the site and submitted the map of the site

6/9 211-apeal-709.2001.doc

on 19th March, 1989 itself, and as such nothing was left to be done. It is

submitted that the respondent no.1 had submitted his report on 20th March,

1989 and as such no work was required to be done. According to the

respondent - accused, no demand was made by them. The learned Special

Judge, after considering the evidence on record, was pleased to acquit both

the respondent-accused of all the offences vide Judgment and Order dated

8th June, 2001. Hence this appeal.

5. Perused the papers as well as the impugned Judgment with the

assistance of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the impugned

Judgment and Order that the learned Judge has completely disbelieved the

evidence of the complainant, considering the material discrepancies and

improvements in his evidence. The learned Judge has observed that the

evidence of the complainant was untrustworthy and that he has changed his

version from time to time. He has observed, that the complainant has falsely

deposed the very genesis of the incident i.e. alleged demand and

negotiations. The learned Judge, considering the material discrepancies,

improvements and contradictions, carefully evaluated the evidence of the

complainant and came to the conclusion that his evidence does not appear

7/9 211-apeal-709.2001.doc

to be credible and that his evidence reveals falsity, at every stage of the

prosecution story. The learned Judge has in detail considered the complaint

(Exhibit - 53), complainant's deposition, etc. He has further observed that

there is also material discrepancy between the evidence of the complainant

and PW.2 - Shinde (panch witness) with respect to the acceptance of the

bribe amount by respondent no.2, on behalf of the respondent no.1. The

learned Judge observed that if the evidence of complainant and PW.2-

Shinde (panch) is read together, both of them have made inconsistent

statements with respect to demand, at the time of the trap. It appears from

the evidence of PW.2 - Shinde (panch), that without the respondent no.1

making any demand, the complainant took out the amount from the pocket

and held the same in front of the respondent no.1 and thereafter handed it

over to the respondent no.2. The learned Judge in view of the material on

record has held that the evidence of the complainant with regard to

demand and acceptance, at the time of the trap, is not supported by the PW2

- Shinde (panch) and that on the contrary, has falsified the evidence of the

complainant, with regard to the same. The learned Judge also observed that

there are material contradictions, with regard to whether the acceptance

took place inside the counter or outside. The learned Judge has observed

8/9 211-apeal-709.2001.doc

that with respect to demand and acceptance at the time of the trap, PW3 -

P.I. Pramod Honrao, who has claimed that he was present behind the

cupboard in the shop, has altogether given a different version. Considering

the inconsistencies in the statements of the 3 witnesses and 3 different

versions regarding the incident of bribe, the learned Judge has stated that

the prosecution has failed to prove the offences as against the respondent-

accused and as such has acquitted them. It is pertinent to note, that there are

material discrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the evidence of

complainant inter se and between the complainant, panch and the

Investigating Officer, with regard to demand and acceptance of the money.

Infact, a perusal of the evidence shows that respondent no.1 had already

recommended the case of the complainant for sanction of the balance load

sought by the complainant and as such nothing was required to be done by

the respondent no.1. Infact , PW3 - P.I. Honrao, has admitted that a report

was submitted by the respondent no.1 - accused on 20th March, 1989 itself,

and that after 20th March, 1989 i.e. after submission of the report, nothing

was remained to be done by the respondent no.1. It is not in dispute, that the

trap was effected after more than 3 weeks, of submission of the load survey

report by respondent no.1 to his superiors. It also appears that the

9/9 211-apeal-709.2001.doc

complaint (Exhibit - 53) is silent with regard to the same.

6. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept that

respondent no.1 had made any demand. Admittedly, it also appears that

respondent no.1 had not accepted the money in his hand. As far as the

evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of money, on the date of

the trap i.e. 15th April, 1989 is concerned, there are several material

discrepancies in the evidence of all the 3 witnesses. The findings are based

on the evidence on record. No infirmity can be found in the impugned

Judgment and Order dated 8th June, 2001, acquitting the respondent-

accused. The impugned Judgment and Order cannot be said to be either

perverse or unsustainable.

7. Considering the aforesaid, there is no merit in the appeal and

the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)