Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Chandrakant Jagannath Mahajan on 2 May, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat
Cri-Appeal-854-2004.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through A.C.B. Jalgaon ... Appellant
(Ori. Complainant)
Versus
Chandrakant Jagannath Mahajan
Age: 43 years, Occu. Service,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon ... Respondent
(Ori. Accused)
....
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for appellant
Mr. V. B. Jadhav, Advocate along with Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for
respondent
....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
DATED : 02nd MAY, 2022
J U D G M E N T :-
. The State is in appeal against the judgment and order
dated 05.08.2004, passed by the Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special
Case No.15 of 2002, wherein the respondent herein came to be
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read
with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (for short, 'P.C. Act').
1 of 12
(( 2 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
2. The prosecution case in short is that PW2 Ashalata
(complainant), was serving as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife with Primary
Health Centre (PHC) Mhasawad and Sub Section at Bornar. She has
a mentally challenged daughter. The complainant therefore wanted
to be transferred to Nashirabad PHC. She had, therefore, preferred
application for request transfer. The respondent herein was serving
as a Junior Clerk with the Establishment Department of Zilla
Parishad, Jalgaon. The complainant was an employee of Zilla
Parishad, Jalgaon. The Health Centre with which she was serving,
was under Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. The complainant had met the
respondent many a time in connection with her request transfer
since the transfer application was to be routed through him. The
respondent, on 04.07.2002, told the complainant that she would not
be transferred on the same ground as she had earlier been
transferred on her similar request. The complainant requested him
not to put a spoke in her request for transfer. The respondent,
thereupon, asked her to pay him Rs.12,000/- as a condition to put
up her transfer proposal for favorable consideration. On negotiation,
the complainant agreed to pay him Rs. 7,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/-
2 of 12
(( 3 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
was to be paid as advance and the remaining amount on her transfer
to a desired place. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the
respondent bribe, she immediately approached Anti Corruption
Bureay (ACB), Jalgaon on 08.07.2002. Shri Ashok Patil, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Dy. S.P.), ACB, Jalgaon (PW5), recorded
the statement-cum-complaint (Exh.14) lodged by the complainant.
He decided to lay a trap on the following day. He, therefore, asked
the complainant to come to the ACB next morning. The complainant,
accordingly, went there. PW5 Ashok had already secured presence of
two female Government employees to act as panch witnesses. A
pre-trap panchanama (Exh.19) was drawn.
3. All the concerned were given requisite instructions.
Accordingly, the complainant accompanied by PW3 Rajeshri, went to
the Zilla Parishad office to pay the respondent bribe. They met the
respondent there. The complainant inquired with the respondent
whether her proposal for transfer was kept before the District Health
Officer (DHO). He, in turn, asked him not to be worried of it. He
asked her if she has brought the money as had been asked to bring
earlier. The complainant replied to have brought the money. The
respondent, instead of receiving the bribe then and there, asked the
3 of 12
(( 4 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
complainant that they shall go elsewhere. After having walked a few
steps, the respondent opened the drawer of one table and asked the
complainant to drop bribe money therein. The complainant followed
his instructions. She immediately came out of the office to give the
pre-determined signal. The trap team immediately arrived. PW4
Usha (panch), took out the bribe money from the drawer. Trap
panchanama (Exh.20) was drawn there. Thereafter, post-trap
panchanama was drawn. PW5 Ashok, Dy.S.P. lodged the First
Information Report (FIR). On completion of the investigation, all the
papers thereof were forwarded to the then Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon for obtaining his sanction for
prosecution of the respondent. The charge-sheet, therefore, came to
be filed against the respondent herein.
4. The learned Judge framed the charge (Exh.8). The
respondent pleaded not guilty. His defence is of false implication.
5. The prosecution examined five witnesses and produced
in evidence certain documents to bring home the charge. The trial
Court, on appreciation of the evidence in the case, held the
prosecution to have failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable
4 of 12
(( 5 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
doubt. In view of the trial Court, the case of the complainant was
replete with inheritance improbability.
6. Heard.
The learned APP would submit that the complainant was
very much in the know that the respondent did not have an
authority to transfer her to a desired place. Application for her
transfer was to be routed through him. For forwarding the transfer
application, the respondent had made a demand of illegal
gratification. The learned APP took me through the evidence of the
complainant and the shadow witness (PW3) to submit that both
these witnesses had deposed consistent with each other and with
that of the prosecution case, as well. Whatever has been brought on
record in the cross examination of the complainant was a different
matter. Those facts were also true. The personality of the
complainant was such that she doesn't tolerate injustice. There was
nothing to suggest the complainant to be a troublesome lady. In
view of the learned APP, the learned trial Court ought not to have
acquitted the respondent on flimsy grounds. What had been
suggested to the complainant in her cross examination has
substantially been denied. He, therefore, urged for allowing the
5 of 12
(( 6 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
appeal and urged for conviction of the respondent for the offences
he was charged with.
7. The learned Advocate for the respondent would, on the
other hand, submit that it is an appeal from acquittal. Parameters for
consideration in appeal from acquittal are somewhat different.
According to him, the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent
with well reasoned judgment. He took me through the evidence on
record to suggest that the testimony of the complainant would not
inspire evidence.
8. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the
evidence relied on.
9. The respondent was serving as a Junior Clerk with the
Establishment Department of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon at the relevant
time. The complainant was serving as a Auxiliary Nurse Midwife at
PHC, Mhaswad. Her daughter was mentally challenged. The
complainant had therefore moved an application for request transfer
to Nashirabad PHC. Application for transfer of such employees
would be routed through the respondent herein. The complainant
had therefore met him many a time. She had urged him to put up
6 of 12
(( 7 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
the proposal for her transfer before the concerned authorities. The
respondent had informed her that she would not get a desired
posting, since on the similar ground she had already been
transferred. It is in the evidence of the complainant that the
respondent made a demand of Rs.12,000/- for favour of action. On
negotiations, he agreed to receive Rs.7,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/-
was to be paid in advance and the balance, on her transfer. Since
she did not want to pay the respondent bribe, she approached ACB,
Jalgaon on 08.07.2002. Her statement-cum-complaint (Exh.14) was
recorded by PW5 Ashok. It has specifically been averred in the
complaint that the respondent was requested to put up her transfer
proposal immediately. The learned APP was therefore right in
submitting that the complainant was very much in the know that the
respondent did not have authority to make transfer. The respondent
had made a demand of bribe only to put up a favorable proposal.
The case of the prosecution in that regard should not be misread,
submitted by the learned APP.
10. On recording of the complaint Exh.14, it was decided to
lay a trap on the following day. Two lady Government Clerks were
requested to act as panch witnesses. The complainant was asked to
7 of 12
(( 8 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
attend the ACB office on the following morning. Accordingly, she
went to ACB office. Both, PW3 and PW4, panch witnesses were
already present. PW5 gave all of them the requisite instructions.
Pre-trap panchanama was drawn. Anthracene powder was applied
to the currency notes, to be paid as bribe money.
11. As planned, both, the complainant and the shadow
witness (PW3) went to Zilla Parishad Office, Jalgaon on 09.07.2002.
They met the respondent there. The complainant inquired with him
about her transfer proposal. The respondent asked not to be worried.
He asked her whether she had brought the money as was asked for.
She gave a nod. Instead of receiving the bribe money then in there,
the respondent asked the complainant to go elsewhere. All of them,
therefore, started and after a walk of a few steps, the respondent
opened the drawer of one table and asked the complainant to drop
money therein. She followed the instructions. She, then, came out of
the office to give pre-determined signal. In response to the signal
given by the complainant, the trap team arrived. The bribe money
came to be seized from the drawer. The rest of the things followed.
On the same lines is the evidence of the shadow witness (PW3). It
may therefore be said that the evidence of the complainant has been
8 of 12
(( 9 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
reinforced by the evidence of an independent witness. There is,
however, other aspect of the matter, may not be directly connected
with the crime in question. During the cross examination of the
complainant, it has come on record that she was aware that the
authority to transfer her, was the DHO. Transfer order issued by the
DHO was required to be approved by the CEO, Zilla Parishad. She
had prepared her request transfer application in triplicate (Exh. 13,
15 and 16). She had personally met the CEO and DHO, as well. She
had submitted her application for transfer to both these authorities.
The Deputy CEO has even made some endorsement on her
application. It is also in her evidence that she had met the President
of Zilla Parishad and some of its members (political persons), as well
for cancellation of her transfer. Both, the DHO and CEO had assured
her to look into the matter. It is further in her evidence that she was
transferred from Nashirabad way back in 2001. She had, therefore,
proceeded on long leave. But, her higher ups (Boss) had given her
memos on 24.05.1999, 04.10.1999, 23.03.1999 and 23.04.2001.
Her leave application was rejected. The memos referred to herein
before, were issued by Dr. Sonwane. He was alleged to have
demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for cancellation of her transfer. In
9 of 12
(( 10 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
the very complaint she had mentioned that Dr. Sonwane was related
to bootleggers. He indulged in corruption and sexual harassment of
women employees. Similar complaint had been made by her against
Dr. Sonwane to 'Mahila Dakshata Samiti' and 'Human Rights
Commission', as well. It is further in her evidence that before Human
Rights Commission, she had tendered apology to Dr. Sonwane. It is
in her evidence that Dr. Sonwane also reciprocated the same way
and the matter was compromised.
12. True, these facts may seem to have no connection with
the offence in question. This Court has no further material before it
to observe whether the complaints made by the complainant against
Dr. Sonwane were really true or false. The fact however remains that
the complainant is a brave woman. She has to be. The evidence
however indicate that she had met the politicians and Zilla Parishad
CEO and DHO, as well to get transferred to a desired place. The
respondent filed his written say wherein it has been averred that the
complainant was a quarrelsome and troublesome lady. She was in
habit of making complaints against her higher ups. He was a lowest
grade official in the hierarchy. Her application for transfer had
already been forwarded by him. She, however, felt that the
10 of 12
(( 11 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
respondent had poisoned the ears of her higher ups and therefore,
she was not being transferred. It is his case that he was well aware of
the behaviour of the complainant. He, therefore, submitted that no
one would have dared to make a demand of bribe from the
complainant. All the employees were of apprehensive of her. It was a
big room meant for Establishment Section. More than 11 employees
had their tables with their respective seats in one and the same
room. The complainant herself pulled the drawer and dropped some
money therein. Admittedly, it was not a seat and the table of the
respondent himself.
13. PW1, sanctioning authority testified to have had received
a draft sanction along with all the police papers. The respondent,
therefore, had every reason to contend that the sanction accorded by
for his prosecution, was on the basis of draft sanction and not on
going through the papers of investigation. This is an appeal against
acquittal. What has been submitted in defence leads this Court to
observe that the trial Court had rightly not relied on the evidence of
the complainant. In such a situation, there ought to have been
verification of demand of bribe allegedly made by the respondent
herein.
11 of 12
(( 12 )) Cri-Appeal-854-2004
14. After having appreciated the prosecution case as against
the defence version, this Court finds no reason to take a different
view. The appeal, therefore, fails. The same is dismissed.
[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]
SMS
12 of 12
