The State Of Mah. (Anti Corruption ... vs Sudhakar S/O Daulatrao Bharati
2017 Latest Caselaw 2574 Bom

        J-apeal272.06.odt                                                                                               1/7  


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No.272 OF 2006


        The State of Maharashtra
        (Anti Corruption Bureau, Amravati)
        through Police Station Officer,
        Daryapur.                                                                   :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

        Sudhakar s/o. Daulatrao Bharati,
        Aged about 45 years,
        Occupation : Junior Clerk,
        S.D.O. Office, Daryapur.                                                     :      RESPONDENT


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri K.R. Lule, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant.
        None for the Respondent.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 18 MAY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order

dated 17th January 2006, delivered by the Special Judge and Additional

Sessions Judge, Achalpur, District Amravati, in Special Case (ACB)

No.19/1999, thereby acquitting the respondent of the offences

punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

J-apeal272.06.odt 2/7

2. In the year 1995, the respondent was serving as a Clerk at

the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court at Daryapur. In October 1995,

there were two criminal cases, one filed under Section 93 of the Bombay

Prohibition Act and the other filed under Section 110 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure by Police Station Rahimpur, Tq. Daryapur, District

Amravati, which were pending on the file of this Court. These cases

were filed against the complainant, Dattu Jamnik. The complainant was

interested in early disposal of these cases. 19 th October, 1995 was the

date fixed for his attendance in the Court and he did attend the Court on

that date. He met the respondent and made inquiry about the progress

of those cases. The respondent asked the complainant if the latter was

interested in their early disposal to which, the complainant nodded. The

respondent told the complainant that his wish would be fulfilled and the

cases would be disposed of on the orders of the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, but he put a condition therefor. He told the complainant that

the complainant would have to shell out an amount of Rs.200/- for that

purpose and give the same to the respondent. There was some

bargaining and ultimately it was agreed that the complainant would pay

an amount of Rs.150/- to the respondent and in lieu of that, the

respondent would obtain orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate about

the closure of those pending cases. The complainant was given a date for

that purpose and a show was created that both the cases were adjourned

J-apeal272.06.odt 3/7

to that date. The next date given was of 30 th October, 1995. On that

date, the complainant could not arrange for the money and, therefore,

was given another date of 1.11.1995.

3. The complainant, however, had no desire to fulfill the illegal

demand of the respondent and, therefore, he lodged a report against him

at the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Amravati. The officials of the

Anti Corruption Bureau, Amravati decided to catch red-handed

respondent while accepting the bribe amount. Elaborate arrangements

for laying the trap were made. The trap was set for 1.11.1995 at the

Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court, Daryapur. The trap was proved to be

successful, as there was a demand of bribe of Rs.150/- made by the

respondent and acceptance of this amount by the respondent from the

complainant. The tainted currency notes were also recovered from the

person of the respondent. Necessary panchanamas were drawn out.

Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of the

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

4. The respondent was tried for the offences punishable under

Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On

merits of the case, learned Special Judge found that the evidence of the

complainant, who had turned hostile was not reliable and that on the

day of the trap, which was 1.11.1995, the criminal cases filed against the

complainant were not pending and that the complainant did have the

J-apeal272.06.odt 4/7

knowledge of disposal of those criminal cases well before the date of

trap. Therefore, the learned Special Judge further found that the

prosecution failed to prove its case against the respondent and acquitted

the respondent of the said offences by the judgment delivered on

17th January, 2006. Not being satisfied with the same, the State is before

this Court in the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned A.P.P. for the State. None is present for

the respondent.

6. I have carefully gone through the record of the case including

the impugned judgment and order.

7. It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the appreciation of

the evidence of the prosecution done by the learned Special Judge is

perverse and the findings of facts recorded by him do not logically arise

from the evidence of the prosecution.

8. With due respect, I must say, the case here appears to be very

different than the one tried to be presented on behalf of the prosecution.

The evidence of the prosecution has clearly shown that the criminal cases

were already disposed of on 19.10.1995, that disposal of those cases was

duly informed to the complainant on that day itself and his signature was

also obtained in the roznama of the case on 19.10.1995. Therefore, it is

difficult to believe the prosecution story that a Clerk like the respondent

would dare make any demand of bribe from the complainant in the

J-apeal272.06.odt 5/7

present case just to obtain orders of Sub Divisional Magistrate about

closure of the criminal cases and even if such an attempt was to be made

by the respondent, still, it would not produce the desired impact on the

mind of the complainant such as PW 1 Dattu Jamnik, for, PW 1 already

knew that those criminal cases were disposed of by the Sub Divisional

Magistrate on 19.10.1995.

9. Apart from the above referred material lacuna in the

prosecution case, there is one more significant deficiency in the

prosecution case against the respondent. The complainant PW 1 Dattu

Jamnik, himself turned hostile to the prosecution. He did not support

the prosecution in any way. He denied that the respondent demanded

bribe amount from him for disposal of the criminal cases filed against

him. He denied that he had given amount of Rs.150/- as bribe to the

accused. On the contrary, he admitted that the report against the

respondent was given, not by him but by another person named

Kamalkishor Hambarde and that even the currency notes making up

amount of Rs.150/- were given to him by said Kamalkishor Hambarde.

In this background the learned counsel for the respondent argued that

Kamalkishor Hambarde may have had some axe to grind against the

respondent and because of that, he may have got the complainant to file

a false graft case against the respondent. This argument advanced on

behalf of the respondent has been accepted by the learned Special Judge

J-apeal272.06.odt 6/7

upon overall consideration of the nature of the prosecution case and

evidence against the respondent. I too have no reason to entertain any

different view in the matter.

10. Of course, the shadow witness PW 2 Bhaskar Rohankar,

Panch No.1, has supported the case of the prosecution by asserting that

there was a demand of Rs.150/- made by the respondent, which was

fulfilled by the complainant when amount of Rs.150/- was handed over

by him to the respondent. On recovery of the tainted currency notes

from the person of the respondent as well, panch No.2 AW 2 Anil Kale

stands fully behind the prosecution. The Investigating Officer PW 5

Saifuddin Sheikh also speaks about lodging of the complaint by the

complainant against the respondent and faithfully drawing of both the

panchnamas and also recovery of tainted currency notes from the person

of the respondent. But, none of these witnesses explains as to why the

respondent would make a demand of bribe amount from the

complainant when no official work was pending with him or even with

his superior officer, Sub Divisional Magistrate, when admittedly the

criminal cases filed against the complainant were already disposed of

long before the date of alleged acceptance of bribe amount and that too

to the knowledge of the complainant. PW 5 Saifuddin Sheikh,

Investigating Officer, also does not give satisfactory explanation about

the version of the complainant regarding the role played by Kamalkishor

J-apeal272.06.odt 7/7

Hambarde in the entire case. Therefore, evidence of these witnesses in

the absence of any supportive evidence of the complainant himself and

pendency of criminal cases against the complainant, would not be

sufficient to bring home to the respondent his guilt for the offences of

acceptance of illegal gratification punishable under Section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the offence of abuse of his

official position punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. The view, therefore, taken by the learned Special

Judge is possible. It is not an impossible view warranting interference

with it. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal deserves to be

dismissed.

11. The appeal stands dismissed.

JUDGE

okMksns