The State Of Maharashtra vs Anil Dasshrath Patil And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1379 Bom

                                                            206-apeal-1334-2006.doc




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1334 OF 2006

The State of Maharashtra                               ... Appellant
(Through : V.A. Jadhav, PSI
Anti Corruption Bureau, S'durg
Sindhudurg At : Kudal.
Dist :- Sindhudurg.)

            Versus

1. Anil Dashrath Patil
Age - About 43 years,
Range Forest Officer,
Dodamarg, Dist - Sindhudurg.

2. Vitthal Nana Gawas
Age- About 62 Years,
R/o. Madhaliwadi, Usap,
Ta. Dodamarg, Dist. Sindhudurg.                        ... Respondents

                               .....
Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for the State - Appellant.
None for Respondents.
                               .....

                          CORAM               :   PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                          :   27th AUGUST, 2021.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                        :   9th FEBRUARY, 2022.


JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by the State of

Maharashtra challenging the judgment and order dated 25 th

July, 2005 passed by the Special Judge, Sindhudurg - Oros in

Special Case No. 6 of 2004 acquitting the respondents for the

Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

offences punishable under Sections 7, 7-A r/w Section 12 and

Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 12 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short " PC Act").

2. The prosecution case is as follows :-

The complainant is the resident of Village Usap. On

22nd May, 2003, he approached office of Anti Corruption

Bureau (for short "ACB") at Kudal and lodged the

complaint alleging that the accused No.1 had demanded

bribe. The complainant is dealing in fire-wood and was

transporting it in a tempo belonging to his sister. On 21 st

April, 2003, the accused No.1 - Range Forest Officer seized

tempo while it was transporting fire-wood to Goa, on the

ground that there was no permit for transporting forest

produce. The driver of complainant gave the said

information to him. The complainant met accused No.1

and requested for releasing the vehicle. He was informed

that the case has been filed in respect of the vehicle and

hence it could not be released for 4 days. The complainant

again met the accused and at that time the accused No.1

demanded the amount of Rs.20,000/- for releasing the

vehicle. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the

Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

amount. Accused No.1 told him that the vehicle would not

be released. Thereafter, the complainant met accused No.1

and again requested him to release the vehicle. The

accused repeated his demand of Rs.20,000/- for releasing

the vehicle. The amount was then negotiated and reduced

to Rs.10,000/-. He was called on 19th May, 2003 along

with his sister. PW-2 met accused No.2 along with his

sister and persons who would be sureties. On payment of

fine of Rs.2,100/- and execution of necessary documents

the vehicle was released. The accused No.1 demanded the

bribe amount of Rs.10,000/.- The complainant told him

that he could not arrange the amount. He was told to bring

the amount on 23rd May, 2003 at 7.30 a.m. He was also

told that he should be accompanied by accused No.2. He

was threatened that in case the amount is not paid, his

vehicle would be again attached and confiscated. Hence,

the complainant approached ACB and lodged the

complaint. It was decided to lay trap. Panchas were called.

Instructions were given to them. Trap was arranged.

Complainant and panch witnesses approached accused

No.1. The other members of raiding party were waiting at

a distance. Accused No.2 came to the office of accused No.1

They went to the residence of accused No.1. The amount

Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

was kept on the table on instructions of accused No.1. It

was counted by accused No.1 and given to accused No.2

The complainant gave signal to raiding party. Both the

accused were arrested. Amount was recovered. Their

hands were examined under ultra violet rays. Traces of

anthracene powder were noticed. Investigation proceeded.

Charge-sheet was filed.

3. Charge was framed under Sections 7, 7A r/w

Section 12 of PC Act, 1988 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section

13(2) of PC Act on 16th February, 2005.

4. The prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-1 -

Ashfaq Raut is the panch witness. PW-2 Sagar Gawas is the

complainant. PW-3 Madhukar Sonkusare is the Deputy

Secretary, Forest Department and sanctioning authority. PW-4

Surash Warang is the Investigating Officer.

5. The statements of accused were recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Apart from explanation in answer to the

questions put to them under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused

filed written say as part of their explanation under Section 313

of Cr.P.C. and their defence.

Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

6. The learned Special Judge scrutinized the evidence

and for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment, both the

accused were acquitted vide judgment and order dated 25 th

July, 2005.

7.                 PW-1 has acted as panch witness.             He was

instructed to accompany complainant.             He stated that on

receipt of the complaint of PW-2, he was summoned by ACB.

The grievance of the complainant was explained to him and the

other pancha. Pre-trap panchanama was recorded. He had

accompanied PW-2 to the residence of accused No.1. The

accused No.1 asked PW-2 whether he had brought the article.

The complainant replied in affirmative. The accused No.1 told

PW-2 that he should call accused No.2. PW-1 and PW-2

proceeded to Bajarpeth and PW-2 gave a call to accused No.2.

Thereafter, accused No.2 came by his vehicle and met them.

Accused No.2 inquired with PW-2 whether he has brought

money. All of them visited the house of accused No.1. PW-1 was

asked to wait outside but he could see what was going on inside

the house. PW-2 kept the amount on the table of the house of

accused No.1. The complainant came out of the house and gave

signal to raiding party. Both the accused were apprehended.

The amount was recovered from them.              From the aforesaid


Sajakali Jamadar                    5 of 13
                                                       206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

evidence, it can be seen that PW-1 was asked to wait outside at

the time when the amount was kept on the table. He did not

hear the conversation between PW-2, accused No.1 and accused

No.2. He has not referred to the fact that after the amount was

kept on the table, it was picked up by accused No.2 and prior to

that accused No.1 had counted the amount. In the cross

examination he stated that Suresh Dalvi from Village Bhedashi

is a political leader. He is member of Zilla Parishad. He is the

owner of saw-mill at Bhedashi. The saw-mill is now in working

condition. He had stated to the Police that accused No.2 had

told him to go out of the house. This fact is not reflected in his

statement.

8. PW-2 Sagar Gawas is the complainant. The

complaint is marked as Exh.22. It was lodged on 22 nd May,

2003. According to him he purchase and sell fire-wood. He is

conducting the said business since January, 2003. He was

using tempo belonging to his foster sister for his business. On

21st April, 2003, wood was transported through the tempo and

since there was no permit for transporting firewood, the vehicle

was intercepted by accused No1. The driver of the vehicle had

informed about it to him. He visited the forest office. The

tempo was attached. The accused No.1 refused to release the

Sajakali Jamadar 6 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

tempo. He met the accused on the next day. The accused No.1

was not inclined to release the vehicle. After about 20 days

from the date of seizure of vehicle, accused No.1 informed him

that he would release the vehicle if he pays Rs.20,000/- to him

as bribe. Thereafter, the amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/-.

He was called to the office along with his sister. The

complainant paid Rs.2,100/- and produced sureties. Receipt of

Rs.2,100/- was issued. The tempo was released. He was told to

pay the amount within 2 to 3 days and was threatened that, on

failure to pay the amount his vehicle would be attached again.

Hence, he lodged the complaint. He referred to the

arrangement made for trap. Amount of Rs.10,000/- was

provided by him for conducting trap. Application of anthracene

powder to the currency notes and instructions were given to

him and the panch witnesses about the raid. He visited the

office and residence of the accused No.1 along with PW-1. The

accused No.1 enquired about accused No.2. He along with PW-1

gave call to accused No.2. They again visited the house of

accused No.1 PW-1 was asked to wait outside the house of

accused No.1. Accused No.2, PW-2 and accused No.1 were in

the house. Accused No.1 told him to keep the amount on the

newspaper kept on the table. The amount was kept on the

table. Accused No.1 counted the said amount and handed over

Sajakali Jamadar 7 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

it to accused No.2 and he was told to pay the amount

subsequently. The complainant gave a signal to raiding party.

Accused was apprehended. The conversation ensued between

PW-2, accused No.1 and accused No.2 in the house of accused

No.1 was not heard by PW-1. He was waiting outside. The

evidence of PW-2 does not clearly state that the accused No.1

had demanded bribe on the day of incident of trap. The fact

that the amount was directed to be kept on the table and it was

picked up by accused No.1 and handed it over by accused No.2

is not seen by PW-1. Thus, the version of PW-2 is not

corroborated by independent evidence of PW-1. PW-2 was cross

examined. He stated that the house of accused No.2 is situated

near his house. Accused No.2 is his distant relative. He had

knowledge about the steps to be taken for conducting business

of firewood and the requirement of permits from forest

department. He was not having any personal vehicle.

Dattaram Talankar was driver on his tempo from January -

2003. Shubhangi Parab is not related to him. Dattaram

Talankar (driver) is brother of Shubhangi Parab. There was no

written agreement between him and Shubhangi Parab about

hiring of tempo. In his complaint he stated that, Shubhangi

parab is his foster sister. He had gone to Pedane Goa for

collecting money from his sister. He collected amount from her.

Sajakali Jamadar 8 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

On 22nd May, 2003, he was at ACB office up to 4.30 to 5.00 p.m.

Thereafter, he stated that he did not go to Pedne on that day.

He was instructed to pay the tainted amount only if the bribe

was demanded.

9. The evidence of this witness is full of doubts. There

is no evidence to show that he was conducting the business of

firewood. According to him, he commenced the business in

January - 2003. The incident of confiscation of the vehicle had

occurred within short span of time thereafter. It was his first

trip. The vehicle belongs to Shubhangi Parab. He claimed that

Shubhangi was his sister. Thereafter he claimed that she is his

foster sister. He also stated that she is not related to him.

Thus, there is nothing to show that he has any link with the

seizure of vehicle. The vehicle was already released.

Documents were executed for release of vehicle. The requisite

fine amount of Rs.2,100/- was paid. Accused No.2 had executed

the documents and surety. The owner of the vehicle Ms.

Shubhangi Parab had executed the documents. It is difficult to

accept that thereafter, the accused demanded the money as

bribe. The vehicle was already released and it was handed over

to the owner. Thus, the defence of the accused that on account

of rivalry with one Dalavi for refusing to him permission to

Sajakali Jamadar 9 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

conduct saw-mill appears to be probable. The accused No.1 was

falsely implicated in this case. The examination in chief and

the cross examination of this witness wherein he went on

changing his version indicate that there is falsity in his

evidence and his version is not genuine.

10. PW-3 is the sanctioning authority. The trial Court

has held that there is no infirmity in sanction order.

11. PW-4 is the Investigating Officer. He conducted

investigation. He referred to events of recording complaint

regarding pre-trap panchanama, arrangement of raid and trap

panchanama. He completed investigation and filed charge-

sheet.

12. The trial Court has assigned reasons for acquittal

which are in consonance with the evidence on record. There

was no verification of demand. There is no independent

evidence to corroborate the version of PW-2 qua demand and

acceptance of money. The previous demand before the

arrangement of trap is not corroborated by any evidence. On

the date of demand and acceptance of money, PW-1 was waiting

outside. He did not hear the conversation between accused No.1

and accused No.2. He did not see that the amount was kept on

Sajakali Jamadar 10 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

the table and that it was not picked up by the accused and

handed it over to accused No.2. PW-2 has changed his version

about his relationship with Shubhangi Parab. There was no

permission for transportation of fire-wood. The first demand

was made allegedly 20 days after the seizure. PW-1 and PW-2

did not state about demand of bribe by accused before payment

of tainted notes by PW-1 to accused No.1. It is not explained as

to why the hands of both the accused showed glittering. The

prosecution had collected papers of forest case initiated against

Shubhangi Parab and driver Talankar which were marked as

Exhibit-23 and Exhibit - 58. Name of PW-2 does not appear in

the papers of the proceedings. Talankar is the brother of

Shubhangi Parab. He is the driver of vehicle. There is nothing

on record to show that the vehicle was hired by PW-2 for

transporting fire-wood as part of his business. There was no

agreement between Shubhangi Parab and PW-2 regarding

hiring of vehicle. PW-2 has no license of forest department for

cutting trees or transportation. The Tempo was attached for

the first time. This shows that the theory of the complainant

that he was conducting fire-wood business is false. He has

changed his version in the cross examination. He stated that

the business had commenced on 2nd April, 2003. The amount

was allegedly demanded immediately after that. Fine imposed

Sajakali Jamadar 11 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

on Shubhangi Parab has been paid. The tempo was released on

payment of fine. The question which arises for consideration is

as to why the public servant would demand the money after

releasing the vehicle by complying the procedure. Shubhangi

had furnished sureties. This process was executed

independently without interference of accused No.1. PW-2

admitted that accused No.2 is his distant relative. He was one

of the surety for releasing vehicle. When the tempo was

released PW-2 had no reason to meet accused No.1. He could

have all the permits and license for conducting business in fire-

wood and in such situation the accused No.1 would have no

opportunity to seize his vehicle, hence, the allegations of

complainant that the accused No.1 had threatened that the

vehicle would be seized again is false. There is no clear case of

demand established in evidence. The witnesses have stated

that the accused inquired whether the article is brought. Thus,

the said incident had occurred when initially PW-1 and PW-2

had visited the house of accused No.1. It is alleged that accused

No.1 told them to bring accused No.1. It is relevant to note that

accused No.2 is relative of PW-2. He has acted as one of the

surety to release the vehicle. The process of release vehicle

was executed on their own by Shubhangi Parab and their

brother. It is not the case of the prosecution that the vehicle

Sajakali Jamadar 12 of 13 206-apeal-1334-2006.doc

was released with the aid of accused No.2 at the instance of

accused No.1. The trial Court has considered all these aspects

and held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case

beyond doubt. The defence of accused is probable.

13. There is no reason to take different view of the

matter. The trial Court's findings are supported by cogent

reasons. Hence, appeal must fail.

14. Hence, I pass the following order :

ORDER

Criminal Appeal No. 1334 of 2006 is dismissed and

disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:

2022.02.10 10:44:30 +0530

Sajakali Jamadar 13 of 13