Athe State Of Mah. Thr. Deputy ... vs Netaji Sambhaji Bhadkhal
2017 Latest Caselaw 2517 Bom

APEAL 428/03                                       1                          Judgment


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 428/2003 
The State of Maharashtra,
through DeputySuperintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur.                                             APPELLANT

                                   .....VERSUS.....

Netaji S/o Sambhaji Badkhal,
Aged about 42 years, Occ. Extension Officer (Bio-gas),
Panchayat Samiti, Nagbhid,
District - Chandrapur,                                                  RESPONDE
                                                                                 NT

     Mrs. Harshada Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant.
                Shri A.M. Jaltare, counsel for the respondent.


                                                   CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J. 

                                                   DATE   :   12  TH   MAY ,     2017. 
ORAL JUDGMENT   

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal

delivered by Special Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.7 of 1993,

State Versus Netaji, present appeal by the State against acquittal

2. The respondent-accused is acquitted of the offence

punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are

as under:-

APEAL 428/03 2 Judgment

During the year 1992, the respondent-accused was

posted as an Extension Officer in Department of Agriculture,

Panchayat Samiti, Nagbhid and there is no dispute that he was the

public servant at the relevant time. One Mahadeo, who was the ex-

employee of Zilla Parishad (Extension Officer of Panchayat Samiti),

was appointed as a turn-key supervisor to supervise the construction

of the bio-gas plant to be installed within the jurisdiction of

Panchayat Samiti, Nagbhid under the National Bio-Gas

Development Programme. The per unit supervision charges were

fixed at Rs.270/-.

4. Complainant Mahadeo as such submitted a claim for

Rs.19170/- in respect of the supervision of the construction of the

bio-gas plants for the period ranging from the year 1989 to 1992.

So as to clear the said bill, the present respondent-accused

demanded bribe of Rs.6,000/-.

5. On February 29, 1992, pursuant to an oral complaint to

the Anti Corruption Bureau, a trap was laid and upon demand, an

amount of Rs.6,000/- was tendered. Upon signal by the

complainant, the respondent-accused was caught red handed. The

APEAL 428/03 3 Judgment

defence of the accused was of denial of any demand, much less,

demand of Rs.6,000/-.

6. In support of the prosecution case, P.W.1-complainant

Mahadeo, P.W.2-Sk.Abdul who is a panch witness, P.W.4-Wasudeo

Kawale B.D.O. and P.W.5-Giriraj, the sanctioning authority, were

examined in addition to the police officials.

7. Upon appreciation of the evidence, after recording

finding of the status of the respondent-accused as a public servant,

the rest of the issues were answered in negative and the learned

Special Judge ordered acquittal of the respondent-accused.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would urge

that the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge on the issue

of not proving the demand are erroneous and for the said purpose

would rely upon the evidence of P.W.1-Complainant Mahadeo and

P.W.2-Panch witness Sk.Abdul. The perusal of the evidence of

P.W.1-Mahadeo depicts that post retirement, initially he was

allotted the work of supervision for 32 villages, however, some

APEAL 428/03 4 Judgment

work was withdrawn from him. The evidence of P.W.4-B.D.O Shri

Kawale is required to be appreciated. Once based on the said

evidence, the complainant has admitted as regards withdrawal of

his work to a certain extent. There appears to be a dispute as

regards the total number of villages allotted to the complainant for

the purpose of supervision. The demand for an amount of bribe by

the respondent-accused is claimed to be for supervising 71 bio-gas

units and out of these, around 99% units were from such villages of

which the work was already withdrawn from the complainant. As

such, he appears to be aggrieved by the said act of withdrawal of

the work.

9. In the aforesaid background, the motive to implicate

the accused is required to be appreciated. It is then to be noted that

bio-gas units, of which the complainant supervised installation,

were required to be ordered to be repaired through the complainant

himself though initially he disputed the same. From the aforesaid

communication received from the complainant it appears to be

shortfall in service rendered by the complainant.

10. On January 18, 1992, after withdrawal of the part of

APEAL 428/03 5 Judgment

the work from the complainant, he being getting aggrieved thereby

in the aforesaid background, the possibility of false implication

cannot be ruled out. The initial demand from the complainant was

on February 17. Exhibits 24 to 28 are the certificates which were

produced in support of the claim for releasing the amount of the

work supervised by him. The trap in the present case is completed

on March 3, 1992, whereas the certificate appears to be of March 5,

i.e. after the trap. The duty that is casted upon the respondent-

accused is putting of note-sheet that he is not the drawing and the

disbursing authority. The proposal was duly submitted by the

respondent-accused to the B.D.O. on 19.02.1992 and on the date of

the trap, nothing was pending with the respondent-accused. In the

aforesaid background, the evidence of Mr.Kawale and panch

witness is required to be appreciated. In my opinion, the learned

Special Judge has rightly appreciated and concluded that the

demand by the respondent-accused was not proved.

11. Once the demand in an offence under the provisions of

the Prevention of Corruption Act is not proved, the very case of the

prosecution gets demolished.

APEAL 428/03 6 Judgment

12. The perusal of the judgment of the learned Special

Judge depicts that it has in all sense appreciated the evidence of

respective witnesses and has upon detail scrutiny and analysis,

recorded the finding of acquittal.

13. The law on the issue of interference by the appellate

Court in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal is required to

be appreciated. The scope in such an eventuality is very restricted

as if the appellate Court notices any material illegality or perversity

and the view expressed by the learned Court below was an

impossible view, then only the appellate Court is required to

interfere with the same.

14. As observed hereinabove, I hardly see any material

perversity or disagreement with the view expressed by the learned

Special Judge as the same appears to be a possible view based on

the appreciation of the evidence. No case for interference is made

out. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

JUDGE APTE