Sampat Bhausaheb Kharpude vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 3350 Bom

Tandale                                                           201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2016

Sampat Bhausaheb Kharpude                      ]
Age : 42 years, Occu. : Service                ]
R/o at Sai Kripa Niwas, S. No. 38/1/A          ]
Eknaath Pathare Vasti, Chandanagar,            ]
Pune.                                          ]
(Now in Yerwada Central Jail, Pune.            ]              ... Appellant

          Versus

State of Maharashtra                           ]
Through Loni Kalbhor Station,                  ]
Dist. Pune.                                    ]              ... Respondent.

Mr. Abhishek Avchat for Appellant.
Mr. S. S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Respondent - State.


                                    CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.
                                RESERVED ON : 14th DECEMBER 2020.
                             PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2021.


JUDGMENT :

The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "P.C. Act") and

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay fine

of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple

imprisonment for 3 (three) months and under Section 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

for 4 (four) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine,

to further suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months, by the Special

Judge (Under P.C. Act), Pune in Special Sessions Case No.15 of 2015 by its

Judgment and Order dated 31st December 2015. The learned Special Judge

has directed that, both the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant

shall run concurrently. The said Judgment and Order dated 31 st December

2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Under the P.C. Act), Pune is

impugned herein.

2. Heard Mr. Avchat, learned counsel for the appellant and

Mr.Hulke, learned A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Perused entire record.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as under :-

(i) The complainant, Mr. Ratikant B. Yadav (PW-1) was a developer

of immovable property by profession. He had agreed to develop a plot of land

bearing gut No. 184, admeasuring 27 ares situated at Urali-Kanchan owned by

Shri Mahadeo Kanchan and others. An Agreement was accordingly executed

between the parties and was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Haveli-6 Pune.

After obtaining permission from the Grampanchayat of Urali-Kanchan, he

constructed four storied building, comprising of 49 tenements/flats. From the

year 2010, Grampanchayat Urali-Kanchan assessed the said flats for tax

purpose and the complainant was paying tax of the said flats. As the

complainant had sold out flats in the said building, the purchasers of the said

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

flats had applied with the Grampanchayat to record their individual names in

revenue record of Grampanchayat along with their respective sale-deeds.

Appellant was Village Development Officer at the relevant time and was

having the authority to effect the said transfer. The complainant and other

flat owners were pursuing their Applications for transfer of the said flats in

their respective names in the record of Grampanchayat, however the appellant

used to avoid it for some or the other reasons.

(ii) On 16th September 2014, at about 7.00 p.m., complainant met

appellant and requested him for transferring the said flats in the names of

respective purchasers. Appellant told him that, he would have to pay Rs. 1

lakh to the appellant for transferring the said flats and if the complainant did

not pay the said amount, the appellant would not transfer the said flats in the

record of Grampanchayat Urali-Kanchan. After negotiations, the appellant

agreed to accept Rs.50,000/-. On 20th September 2014, the complainant again

met appellant and requested him for recording names of flat owners, when

the appellant told complainant to arrange amount as stated by him within two

days. The complainant realized that, unless and until he pays the said amount

to the appellant, the appellant would not record names of the respective flat

owners. As the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the said amount

demanded by appellant, he decided to lodge a complaint with Anti-Corruption

Bureau.

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

(iii) The complainant went to the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau

on 23rd September 2014 and met Superior Officer there. The Superior Officer

directed him to meet Police Inspector Shri Prakash M. Shinde (PW-6), the

Investigating Officer of the present crime. P.I. Prakash Shinde (PW-6)

recorded complaint of the complainant as per his say. The complainant

singed the said complaint (Exh.9). P.I. Shinde (PW-6) thereafter called two

panch witnesses, namely, Shri Rajendra Pisal and Shri Rahul Khedkar. The

said complaint was read over to them. The panch witnesses after reading,

signed the said complaint. It was thereafter decided to lay a trap. The

complainant produced Rs.50,000/-, consisting 100 notes of Rs.500/-

denomination. Necessary legal formalities of pre-trap panchanama (Exh.14)

were complied with.

(iv) The complainant, Shri Rajendra Pisal (PW-2) and other officers of

Anti-Corruption Bureau thereafter proceeded to village Urali-Kanchan and

halted their vehicle. P.I. Shinde apprised complainant about use of voice

recorder. The voice of complainant and Shri Rajendra Pisal (PW-2) was

recorded in D.V.R. The said D.V.R. was kept in the left side shirt pocket of the

complainant by switching in on. The complainant and Mr. Rajendra Pisal

(PW-2), thereafter proceeded in the car of the complainant to the office of

Grampanchayat Urali-Kanchan. The appellant was present there. The

complainant and PW-2 met appellant. The complainant told that, he could

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

arrange for Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- would be provided by his brother-in-

law and he would come back after arranging the said amount. The appellant

approved the same and asked the complainant to bring the amount. The

complainant and PW-2 then went back to the place where the raiding party

was stationed. D.V.R. was taken out and conversation recorded in it was

heard. Thereafter, it was decided to further proceed for the trap.

(v) The complainant and panch witness No.1 then went to the office

of the Grampanchayat Urali-Kanchan. The appellant met them outside the

office of the Grampanchayat. Appellant told complainant and PW-1 to go

inside the office and accordingly they went. The appellant also came inside

his office and asked the complainant whether the amount is arranged to

which the complainant told him 'yes'. The appellant asked him, how much

amount was arranged, to which complainant answered 'Rs.50,000/-'. The

appellant told 'ok' to the complainant and thereafter the complainant took out

tainted notes by his right hand and gave it to the appellant. The appellant

accepted the said amount by both his hands and put it in his right side trouser

pant pocket. The complainant asked the appellant, when his work would be

completed to which the appellant told him that, by tomorrow his work would

be done. The complainant came out of the office and gave predetermined

signal to the raiding party.

The raiding party immediately accosted appellant. The Digital

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

Voice Recorder, which was placed on the person of the complainant was put

off. Anthracene powder was noticed on the right hand and right side pocket

of the appellant.

(vi) After completion of investigation and obtaining necessary

sanction from the Sanctioning Authority (PW-3) to prosecute the appellant,

charge-sheet came to be filed before the Trial Court.

The Trial Court framed charge below Exh. 2 under Sections 7 and

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the appellant,

to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To bring home guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined in all

6 witnesses namely (i) Shri. Ratikant B. Yadav, (PW No.1), the complainant;

(ii) Shri. Rajendra T. Pisal (PW No.2) panch witness to demand and trap of

the appellant; (iii) Shri. Kantilal B. Umap (PW No.3), the Sanctioning

Authority; (iv) Shri. Kailas G. Koli (PW No.4), Village Development Officer;

(v) Shri. Sandeep N. Kohinkar (PW No.5), Enquiry Officer pertaining to the

receipt (Exh.22A) prepared by the appellant and; (vi) Shri. Prakash M. Shinde

(PW No.6) Dy.S.P., the Investigating Officer of the present crime.

(vii) The Trial Court recorded evidence of aforestated witnesses and

the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') below Exh.39. The appellant also

filed his written statement below Exh.40.

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

It is the defence of the appellant that, he did not demand and

accept any bribe. The appellant has stated that, there were arrears of tax of

flats constructed by the complainant and the complainant paid Rs.50,000/-

towards part payment of arrears of tax in respect of the said flats. That, the

complainant was having pressure of payment of tax due to issuance of notice

and the appellant had sought guidance from the Senior in respect of

transferring the flats. Therefore, the complainant was having grudge in his

mind against the appellant and while making part payment of tax amount, the

complainant gave colour of bribe to the said advance tax of Rs.50,000/- and

falsely implicated appellant in the present crime.

The learned Special Judge, (under PC Act), Pune by its impugned

Judgment and Order dated 31st December 2015 has convicted and sentenced

the appellant, as noted hereinabove.

4. Mr. Avchat, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the

panch witness (PW No.2) did not hear talks at the time of verification and

therefore the prosecution has failed to prove the demand made by the

appellant. That, the appellant is successful in rebutting presumption as

contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. That, the transcript of the

conversion recorded at the time of trap, cannot be read in evidence as the said

Micro SD card was not produced and proved in the Court by the prosecution.

He submitted that, without examining expert from the Forensic Science

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

Laboratory, its report has been accepted by the Trial Court. That, the

prosecution has not examined any of the flat owners in support of its case

that, they really intended to transfer their flats in their own name. He

submitted that, the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that, the

appellant had demanded bribe amount on 16 th September, 2014. In support

of his contention, he relied on two decisions of this Court viz. (i) Ramdas

Waman Tadge Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 1833

and; (ii) Vinayak s/o. Raghunath Wakle (d) thr. L.Rs. Vs. State of

Maharashtra, reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 2200.

By relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. Reported

in AIR 2019 SC 5233, he submitted that, the Trial Court has committed an

error in directing further investigation by its Order dated 5 th December, 2015

under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., on an application filed by the prosecution

on 2nd December, 2015, which was filed after the trial began with framing of

charges.

He further submitted that, a receipt (Exh.22A) was in fact

prepared by the appellant, however before he could hand it over to the

complainant, the raiding party accosted him. He therefore, prayed that, the

impugned Judgment and Order may be quashed and set aside by allowing

present Appeal.

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

5. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the Appeal and

submitted that, on 23rd September, 2014 i.e. at the time of trap, there were 3

other clerks present in the office of the appellant and it was their duty to

prepare the receipt. That, the appellant has prepared a receipt by taking a

new receipt book, though earlier receipt books were in operation, and has

prepared the said receipt (Exh.22A) subsequently, to develop his defence. He

submitted that, immediately at the time of trap after accosting the appellant,

his statement (Exh.37) was recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW-5)

wherein, the appellant has not stated about preparation of the said receipt.

The Investigating Agency also did not find the said receipt at the time of trap.

He submitted that, the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer (PW-5) is

correct. He submitted that, there are no merits in the matter and therefore, it

may be dismissed.

6. The facts pertaining to demand by and trap of appellant as

narrated hereinabove in paragraph No.4-(i) to 4-(v) are culled out from the

examination-in-chief of Shri. Ratikant Yadav (PW-1) complainant and

repetition of the same is avoided for the sake of brevity. Except an omission

that, 'I do not remember whether I have stated to ACB that panch No.1

accompanied me to the office of Grampanchayat Urali; the accused was there;

we met the accused; accused asked me whether I have arranged the money; I

told that I could arranged Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- is less; I told that my

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

brother-in-law will provide me Rs.10,000/- and I will come back with entire

amount; the accused told me 'ok' and asked me to bring the amount' nothing

beneficial to the appellant in the elaborate cross-examination of the said

witness has been brought on record. PW-1 has denied all the suggestions

given by appellant in his cross-examination and has reiterated that, it was not

for the payment of tax but due to the demand of bribe of the appellant for

transferring the said flats in the names of respective flat purchasers, the said

amount was given.

7. Mr. Rajendra T. Pisal (PW-2) is the panch witness to pre-trap

panchanama and trap dated 23rd September 2014. He has deposed that, he

was serving as a Professional Tax Officer in Sales Tax Department, Pune. On

the directions of his Superior Officer on 23 rd September 2014, he along with

Mr. Rahul Khedkar attended A.C.B. Office. The A.C.B. Officers informed him

about the proposed trap and the formalities to be complied with before it.

This witness has proved pre-trap panchanama (Exh.14). He has further

deposed that, he along with complainant and Mr. Chinchkar proceeded in the

car of the complainant to Urali-Kanchan. The members of raiding party

proceeded in a Government vehicle. They halted near Yashoda Garden,

Koregaon. A digital voice recorder was kept in the left side shirt pocket of

complainant (PW-1). They thereafter went inside the office of

Grampanchayat Urali-Kanchan. Complainant initially went inside the cabin of

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

appellant and after some time came back. The conversation recorded in voice

recorder was heard there and it was confirmed that, the appellant has

demanded bribe from the complainant. He along with complainant again

went to the office of the Grampanchayat by walk. At that time, the procession

of bulls on the occasion of 'Pola' was going on. The appellant had came out

from the office and was watching the said procession. PW-2 along with

complainant (PW-1) went in the office of appellant. Appellant came in his

cabin. Initially, general talks took place about the procession. Thereafter,

appellant asked complainant 'how much?'. The complainant told him '50'.

Appellant told there was no problem, it's ok. Thereafter, complainant took

out the tainted currency notes by his right hand and handed it over to the

appellant who took it by his right hand and kept it in his right side trouser

pocket. The complainant (PW-1) came out of the cabin, out of the office and

gave predetermined signal to the raiding party. The members of the raiding

party immediately apprehended appellant. P.I. Shinde (PW-6) introduced

himself. As per the directions of P.I. Shinde (PW-6), panch witness No.2 Mr.

Rahul Khedkar took out notes from the right side trouser pocket of the

appellant. They were 50,000/- consisting of 100 notes of denomination of

Rs.500/-. The number of notes after verification were found tallying with the

pre-trap panchanama. Anthracine powder was noted on the right hand and

right side trouser pocket of the appellant under the ultra-violet light and post

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

trap panchanama (Exh.15) was drawn. This witness has also proved the

transcription of conversation panchanama (Exh.18).

In the detailed cross-examination of this witness, certain

admissions detrimental to the interest of the appellant have been brought on

record. At the time of verification, in the conversation he did not hear

discussion about tax. At that time, the complainant (PW-1) told that, he was

possessed of only Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- was less with him. He has

denied the suggestions that, at the time of trap, a bottle of anthracine powder

was also taken with them. At that relevant time, four to five employees were

working and one or two visitors were present in the office of the appellant.

This witness has categorically denied the suggestion that, he did not hear

conversation of verification of demand. That, at the time of trap, apart from

the appellant, there were four to five staff members in the office. In the rest

of the cross examination, nothing beneficial to the appellant, has been elicited

from this witness.

8. Mr. Kantilal B. Umap (PW-3) was working as a Chief Executive

Officer of Zilha Parishad, Pune. He was appointing and removing authority

for the post of Village Development Officer on which the appellant was

working. This witness has deposed that, on 29 th November 2014, he received

proposal from A.C.B. Office, Pune for sanction to prosecute the appellant.

After reading entire proposal minutely along with other documents, he came

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

to the conclusion that, it was a fit case for granting sanction of prosecution

and accordingly he issued sanction Order (Exh.20). He has admitted that,

Village Development Officer was having authority to issue bill towards tax.

Apart from that, only general suggestions are given to this witness in his cross-

examination.

9. Mr. Kailas G. Koli (PW-4) was serving as Village Development

Officer and was posted at Grampanchayat Urali-Kanchan, Taluka Haveli, since

26th January 2015 (i.e. after the appellant was apprehended by A.C.B. on 23 rd

September 2014). He has deposed that, there were five clerks to collect

Grampanchayat tax and to issue receipts. That, on 23rd September 2014, the

appellant was working as Village Development Officer at Grampanchayat

Urali-Kanchan. That, prior to his joining a receipt of Rs.50,000/- was already

prepared. The receipt-book produced by this witness has been marked as

Exh.22. He has identified signature of the appellant from the said receipt

(Exh.22A). The said receipt was for property No.618 for flat Nos.1 to 50.

This witness has explained that, out of the said 50 flats, three persons namely,

Mr. Shelar, Mr. Badhekar and Mr. Degade had paid the property tax of their

flats and names of those three persons were already recorded as owner of

their flats. That, as per the general practice adopted by the Grampanchayat,

the clerk used to issue receipts of taxes. He has categorically stated that,

except receipt (Exh.22A), all receipts were prepared by clerk.

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

In his elaborate cross-examination, general suggestions are given

to this witness by the defence, pertaining to the procedure for payment of

property taxes of houses situated in the jurisdiction of the said

Grampanchayat and with respect to some of the Applications made by the flat

purchasers from the building of the complainant. Nothing beneficial to the

appellant, has been brought on record by the defence.

10. Mr. Sandip N. Kohinkar (PW-5) has deposed that, he was serving

as Block Development Officer since 5th August 2013 at Panchayat Samittee,

Haveli. Grampanchayat Urali-Kanchan was under his supervision. That, on

23rd September 2014, the appellant was working as Village Development

Officer. He has deposed that, by a letter dated 9 th February 2014 (2015), the

Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad, Pune had directed him to conduct

preliminary enquiry. Accordingly, he asked explanation from the appellant

and conducted enquiry. In the enquiry, he found that, inspite of having

current receipt book, the appellant had prepared a receipt in new receipt

book. During the enquiry, he also found that, all the receipts were being

issued by the clerk and the appellant had prepared only receipt in respect of

amount of Rs.50,000/- which is at Exh.22A. The said receipt was in the

receipt book itself and was not given to the property owner. He found that,

the said receipt (Exh.22A) is prepared after the trap of A.C.B. He accordingly

prepared preliminary report (Exh.28).

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

In his cross-examination, certain admissions detrimental to the

interest of the appellant have been brought on record. This witness has

admitted that, on 23rd September 2014 only one new receipt book (Exh.22)

was started. He has admitted that, there was no mention of receipt (Exh.22A)

in trap panchanama of A.C.B, therefore he came to the conclusion that, the

said receipt book was prepared later on. This witness has volunteered that,

apart from it, the said conclusion was drawn by him from the available record

at the Grampanchayat. That, receipt (Exh.22A) is prepared for arrears. That,

the notice for compromising the dispute regarding tax was being issued by

him for pre-litigation Lok-adalat. He could not tell without seeing record,

whether notice for settlement in Lok-adalat was sent to complainant.

11. Mr. Prakash M. Shinde (PW-6) was the Investigating Officer of

the present crime. On 23rd September 2014, he was attached to A.C.B. as a

Dy.S.P.. He has deposed about the facts from lodgement of complaint by the

complainant (PW-1) till laying of trap and arrest of appellant. In his elaborate

cross-examination, he has denied all the suggestions given by the appellant

and reiterated that, the appellant had demanded bribe amount from the

complainant towards transfer of flats in the said building in the name of their

respective purchasers. He has denied that, there was conversation between

appellant and the complainant with regard to arrears of tax and therefore he

purposefully deleted the said contents from the micro SD card. He has denied

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

that, inspite of preparing receipt of Rs.50,000/- towards tax by the appellant,

he purposefully did not seize the said receipt at the time of post trap

panchanama.

12. This leads me to first deal with the contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant that, the Trial Court has committed an error in

directing further investigation by its Order dated 2 nd December 2015 after the

trial begun with framing of charges. It is to be noted here that, the said order

dated 2nd December 2015 was not challenged by the appellant and in fact has

accepted it. Appellant therefore has acquiesced his right to challenge the said

Order and at such a belated stage it cannot be questioned. The record

indicates that, in furtherance of Order dated 5th December 2015, the

prosecution recorded statement of PW-5 to verify the alleged claim of

appellant, that, on the date of trap, i.e. on 23 rd September 2014, he had

prepared a receipt of Rs.50,000/- towards receipt of advance tax from the

complainant (PW-1). As noted earlier, PW-5 in his evidence has categorically

stated that, the said receipt (Exh.22A) was prepared by the appellant after the

trap by opening a new receipt book. If the appellant was having apprehension

that the complainant would falsely implicate him in any crime, the appellant

would have been more cautious in dealing with the complainant. A man with

common prudence ought to have gave receipt to the complainant there and

there only. It is to be noted here that, the appellant did not give the said

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

receipt (Exh.22A) to the complainant immediately after receipt of the said

payment and kept it in the said newly opened receipt book.

13. The appellant while answering question numbers 42 and 43 put

to him while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by the Trial

Court, has adopted a defence that, at that relevant time, no clerk was present

in the office and had gone by taking away key of the cup-board and therefore

the appellant opened a new book and prepared the said receipt. He has stated

that, the complainant did not take the receipt and therefore it remained in the

book. The said defence adopted by the appellant has been falsified by cogent

evidence of Mr. Sandip Kohinkar (PW-5). The record indicates that, the

appellant has produced on record muster roll of the employees of

Grampanchayat, Urali-Kanchan. It reveals that, there were seven employees

in the said Grampanchayat. As per the evidence of Mr. Kailas Koli (PW-4),

there were five clerks present on the said date in the Office. Even if, two

clerks were on leave and one was out of office, still there were two clerks

present in the office to collect tax. The appellant has not examined any

witness in his defence to substantiate his claim that, Smt. Chhaya K. Mhaske

was not available at the time of trap and she had locked receipt books in her

cupboard.

14. The record discloses that, three to four receipt books were being

used for collecting tax simultaneously, because the collection of tax work was

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

assigned to various clerks. If, there were three to four receipt books in use

then question remains to be answered that, why the appellant opened a new

book and issued receipt himself, which is against the practice adopted by the

said Grampanchayat. As per the record, after handing over the said tainted

amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant, the complainant (PW-1) went outside

the office and gave signal. If, the defence of the appellant is to be accepted

that, when he had prepared receipt towards tax amount immediately, then a

simple question arises for determination is that, then why the said receipt was

not given to the complainant immediately before leaving Grampanchayat

office by him and why it remained in the receipt book, found un-detached by

the Investigating Agency. The appellant has failed to offer plausible

explanation for the same. It has come on record that, after accepting the said

amount, the appellant kept it in his right side pocket of trouser. If, as per the

appellant, the said amount was towards taxes, then why the appellant kept it

with him in his trouser pocket. The explanation given by the appellant that,

before the receipt could be handed over to the complainant, police accosted

him, is a palpably sham and bogus defence adopted by him.

15. The Trial Court in para 47 of the impugned Judgment and Order

has observed that, the defence of the appellant does not appears to be

probable, particularly when the receipt book (Exh.22) was in his charge even

after trap and it is the reason, on the overleaf of carbon copy of the said

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

receipt (Exh.22A) on 1st October 2014 (i.e. after about seven days of trap), the

appellant has written "amount is deposited with A.C.B.". It therefore clearly

appears to this Court that, the appellant as and by way of an after-thought

prepared the said receipt (Exh.22A) only to camouflage the acceptance of

bribe. The record further discloses that, immediately after the trap, the

statement (Exh.37) of appellant was recorded by the investigating agency

wherein also the appellant has not mentioned about the receipt allegedly

prepared by him immediately after receipt of payment from complainant and

therefore, the defence of the appellant can not be accepted. This Court is of

the considered view that, the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption

under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The two decisions relied by the learned

counsel for the appellant, namely, Ramdas Waman Tadge (Supra) and

Vinayak s/o. Raghunath Wakle (supra) are of no avail to the appellant as the

facts therein defer from the facts in present case.

It is to be noted here that, micro SD card, on which the first

conversation i.e. the trap verification was recorded was not produced by the

prosecution in Court, at the time of recording of evidence of P.I. Prakash

Shinde (PW-6) and therefore, its transcription even if on record, has been

kept aside from consideration while deciding the present Appeal.

16. The evidence of complainant (PW-1), Mr. Rajendra Pisal (PW-2)

panch witness and Mr. Sandeep Kohinkar (PW-5), enquiry officer is cogent,

Tandale 201.judg.cri.appeal.4-2016.odt

fully reliable and trustworthy. PW-2, an independent panch witness has

clearly stated about the demand by the appellant (though in cryptic language)

and acceptance of it by the appellant. As noted earlier, the version by

complainant (PW-1) and PW-2 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe

amount by the appellant is unshaken in their elaborate cross-examination.

17. Taking into consideration the evidence of all the witnesses

together, it has to be held that, the prosecution has successfully and beyond

reasonable doubt, proved the fact that, the appellant demanded bribe from

the complainant for recording names of flat purchasers in their respective

names and accepted it on 23 rd September 2014 in presence of panch witness

Mr. Rajendra Pisal (PW-2).

18. There are no merits in the Appeal. Appeal is accordingly

dismissed.

19. Appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a

period of eight weeks from today, for undergoing sentence.

(A.S. GADKARI, J.)