Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay Padmakar Bhanushali on 26 November, 2021
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
2-apeal-163-08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra
Through Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Raigad, For Sunil Maruti Dalvi,
Age 36 years, Occ. Private Service,
R/of. Village Khari, Tal. Roha,
District Raigad. ..Appellant
Vs.
Sanjay Padmakar Bhanushali
Age 40 years, Occ. Junior Clerk,
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Roha Office, District Raigad.
R/of. Shri Samarth Prasad, Second floor,
Adharwadi, Kalyan (E), District Thane. ..Respondent
----
Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for the Appellant / State.
Mr. Vinay J. Bhanushali i/b. J. G. Bhanushali, for the Respondent.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 26 NOVEMBER 2021
Judgment :
. By this Appeal, the State is challenging the acquittal of the
Respondent - Accused from the offences punishable under Section
7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
Mamta Kale page 1 of 7
2-apeal-163-08
2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus-
That the Complainant Sunil Dalvi (P.W.1) is the resident of
Village Khari, District Raigad and is having electric connection at
his house. At the relevant time, the Respondent was working as a
Junior Clerk with the Electricity Board at Roha, District Raigad.
The Complainant had paid his electricity bill upto March 2001.
However, as he was not in receipt of the further bills, he went to the
office of the electricity board on 25 July 2001 and met the
Respondent who gave him bill for the period from April 2001 to
June 2001 for Rs.5,000/- which according to the Complainant was
exorbitant and was incorrect. The Complainant showed the receipts
of the previous payments and questioned the correctness of the bill.
It is the material prosecution case that the Respondent demanded an
amount of Rs.1,500/- as illegal gratification for reducing the bill
amount and accepted Rs.300/- on the same day and asked the
Complainant to bring further amount of Rs.1,000/- on 30 July 2001.
The Complainant thereafter approached the Anti Corruption
Bureau (ACB) and lodged a complaint, on the basis of which a trap
was arranged in presence of the panchas on 30 July 2001. However,
the said trap was required to be adjourned to 31 July 2001 as the
Respondent was not present in his office. According to the
prosecution, a trap was laid on 31 July 2001 at 15.15 hours at the
office of the Respondent when the Respondent accepted an amount
of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification from the Complainant for
Mamta Kale page 2 of 7
2-apeal-163-08
showing the favour of reducing the electricity bill amount. Upon
investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed against the Respondent.
3. The learned Special Judge at Raigad framed a charge against
the Respondent under the relevant sections. The Respondent
pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The specific defence of the Respondent is that the bill was
already corrected and reduced to Rs.2,401/- on 25 July 2001. He
claimed that the Complainant had applied for the payment of the
bill amount in installments which the Respondent was authorised to
accept and the amount of Rs.1,000/- was accepted towards the part
payment of the electricity bill and not as illegal gratification.
5. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all four witnesses
namely the Complainant - Sunil Dalvi (P.W.1), Panch Gorakh
Fadtare (P.W.2), PI CID Alibag - Prakash Bagwe (P.W.3) and the
Sanctioning Authority Mr. Kumar Swami (P.W.4), Superintendent
Engineer of the Electricity Board. The prosecution has produced
the record of the investigation. The Appellant did not lead any
evidence in defence.
Mamta Kale page 3 of 7
2-apeal-163-08
6. The learned Special Judge by the impugned judgment and
order dated 27 April 2006 in Special Case No.3/2002 has acquitted
the Respondent. Hence, this Appeal.
7. I have heard the learned APP for the Appellant and the
learned counsel for the Respondent. With the assistance of the
learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record.
8. It is submitted by the learned APP that the recovery of the
tainted currency notes has been established and the same is
sufficient to raise presumption under Section 20 of the said Act
which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. It is submitted that
the learned Special Judge was in error in holding that the defence of
the Respondent is probable. He therefore submitted that the
acquittal of the Respondent is not legal and proper.
9. The learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that
there is material on record to show that the bill was already reduced
on 25 July 2001 and the Respondent had no authority to further
reduce the amount. It is submitted that it was the Complainant who
had applied for payment of the bill amount in installments which
the Respondent was authorised to accept and therefore, the defence
is clearly prababilised on the basis of the prosecution evidence and
the statement of the Respondent made immediately after the trap.
Mamta Kale page 4 of 7
2-apeal-163-08
10. I have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the
submissions made.
11. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the Complainant
had paid the electricity bill upto March 2001 and had approached
the Respondent for non receipt of the subsequent bill. It has also
come on record that the Respondent then gave the bill for
Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant which was questioned by the
Complainant being incorrect, in view of the earlier payments made
for which the Complainant produced the receipts. The copy of the
bill (Exh.21) clearly shows that bill for Rs.5,000/- being faulty bill
was reduced to Rs.2,401/-, on 25 July 2001 itself. The copy of the
bill at Exh.21 sets out the previous payments made by the
Complainant and records that the faulty bill has been adjusted and
the bill has been revised as per the orders of the Deputy Executive
Engineer. Incidentally, this precisely is the defence taken by the
Respondent who claims that upon the Complainant questioning the
correctness of the bill of Rs.5,000/- he was taken to the Deputy
Executive Engineer Mr. Lipare and as per his orders the revised bill
for Rs.2,401/- was issued. Once the bill was revised on 25 July 2001
as per the orders of the Deputy Executive Engineer, the Respondent
had no authority to further reduce the bill amount. Not only that
there is an Application (Exh.26) on record which is an Application
given by the Complainant for payment of the bill in installments.
Mamta Kale page 5 of 7
2-apeal-163-08
The said Application bears an endorsement to accept Rs.1,000/-
which is dated 31 July 2001. The Complainant in his evidence has
accepted the said written consent cum undertaking by which he had
agreed to pay the amount of Rs.1,000/- as the first installment and
the balance within a month. Thus, the Application (Exh.26) is not
disputed by the Complainant. The evidence of P.W.2 who is a panch
also shows that immediately after the trap the Respondent claimed
that the Complainant had paid the amount towards the payment of
electricity consumption charges. The Sanctioning Authority (P.W.4)
who at the relevant time was Superintendent Engineer of Pen Circle
within whose jurisdiction the Respondent was working, had
admitted in the cross examination that the Engineers, Linemen and
the clerks were empowered and authorised to rectify the bills and
collect the amount of bills. P.W.4 has stated that these employees
were also empowered to hold camps on the weekly bazar days and
by visiting the individual consumers collect the consumption
charges. Clearly this must be in an attempt to ensure that over all
arrears of the electricity bills are reduced. Considering the over all
evidence of the Complainant, P.W.2 and the documentary evidence
in the form of the bill (Exh.21) and the Application (Exh.26) and
the admission by the Sanctioning Authority that the employees
including clerks were authorised to accept the amount of the
electricity bills, in my considered view, the Special Judge has rightly
Mamta Kale page 6 of 7
2-apeal-163-08
come to the conclusion that the defence is probabilised and the
presumption, if any, stands rebutted.
12. It is now well settled that the Appellate Court in an Appeal of
the present nature can interfere only where the finding recorded by
the Trial Court is found to be perverse or an impossible view. If the
view taken by the Trial Court is found to be plausible, no
interference is called for (See the decision of the Supreme Court in
Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka 1). Applying the
principles, no case for interference is made out. The Appeal is
without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
1(2007) 4 SCC 415
Mamta Kale page 7 of 7
