Bombay High Court
Rajendra Yadavrao Bhamare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2023
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2023:BHC-AS:38630
J-1155-2018.doc
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1155 OF 2018
Rajendra Yadavrao Bhamre ] .. Appellant
vs.
State of Maharashtra ] .. Respondent
Mr.Aniket Nikam a/w Aashish Satpute, Piyush Toshniwal and Amit
Icham for the Appellant.
Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for the State.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J
RESERVED ON :13th October, 2023.
PRONOUNCED ON: 14th December, 2023.
JUDGMENT :
1] In Swatantar Singh vs. State of Haryana (1997) 4 SCC 14, the
Apex Court has pertinently observed as under :-
"6. Corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph
nodes, the vital veins of the body politic, social fabric of efficiency
in the public service and demoralising the honest officers. The
efficiency in public service would improve only when the public
servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently,
truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the
performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corruption
would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of
the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke."
J-1155-2018.doc
What is quoted above is further fortified by the Apex Court in the
case of State of M.P. vs. Shambhu Dayal (2006) 8 SCC 693, where,
once again it is reiterated that large scale corruption retards the nation-
building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count.
2] The case before me is one such instance where a Police Head
Constable faced an acquisition of accepting the bribe amount for
bullying the innocent citizens on the pretext of arrest and accepting the
amount by way of illegal gratification in discharge of his duty.
I must just note that this is probably one occasion, where on the
complaint filed by the complainant a trap was laid and he is
apprehended leading to the accusations being levelled against him for
accepting the bribe amount and finally resulting into a conviction. It is
quite possible that there might have been several such occasions,
where the bribe amount is demanded and accepted, but since no
cognizance of the same was taken, he must have escaped unscathed.
3] The Appellant, Police Head Constable attached to Adgaon Police
Station, Taluka and District Nashik, faced anti-corruption trial before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Special Case (ACB) No.13 of
2011 for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and on being found guilty
under Section 7, he is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six
months and to pay find of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for one month, whereas, he is sentenced to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month, on his conviction under
Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.
Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
J-1155-2018.doc
4] Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, the Appellant has
preferred the present Appeal, which came to be admitted on
22.10.2018 and the application filed by him seeking suspension of
sentence and securing his release on bail, was allowed. As a result of
the said order, he is presently on bail.
I have heard Mr.Aniket Nikam alongwith Ashish Satpute, the
learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.S.R. Agarkar, the learned APP
for the State.
5] It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant Santosh
Kirve (PW 1) a labourer, used to maintain his family by doing labour
work. He had employed one of his acquaintance from the village viz.
Ramesh Zumbar Jadhav with one Satavane for carrying out the
agricultural work. But Jadhav was in the habit of consuming liquor and
creating ruckus and this constrained the complainant to remove him
from the job.
On 16.05.2010, Ramesh Jadhav, under the influence of liquor,
came near the house of the complainant since he carried an opinion
that it is on his say, he was removed from the job; he abused and
pushed the complainant and his mother. This constrained the
complainant alongwith his mother, to approach Wadivarhe Police
Station and lodge a report, which was taken by accused Bhamre,
Police Head Constable, serving in the Police Station. At that night,
Ramesh Jadhav also came to the Police Station and registered his
complaint against the complainant, his mother Tarabai, brother Nilesh
and sister Sunita, which was also reduced into writing by Rajendra
Bhamre, the Accused/Appellant.
As per the prosecution Bhamre then told the complainant and
his family members that he had to register chapter case against them
J-1155-2018.doc
and they will have to be kept in the lock up, but if they want to avoid
this, they will have to pay him Rs.5,000/- and thereafter the
complainant and his mother left the Police Station. Thereafter, accused
made a phone call from his mobile on the mobile phone of the
complainant and asked him to come to the Police Station on the next
day i.e. 17.05.2010 alongwith the amount of Rs.5000/-. However, he
was informed by the complainant that since he was not well, they
would not come on that day and he approached the Anti Corruption
Bureau (ACB) and lodged the complaint.
PI Ugale (PW 3) asked the complainant to report to him on the
next day and he called the panchas and on obtaining their consent, a
trap was laid by following the requisite procedure.
6] It is the case of the prosecution that the Appellant demanded and
accepted the bribe amount and kept it underneath the government
trunk in the Police Station. He was apprehended and the bribe money
was recovered by lifting the trunk, which matched with the number of
the notes recorded in the Pre-trap panchanama. The Panchanama
recorded the details of the trap and it is in this background, the accused
faced the charge of demanding and accepting a gratification of
Rs.5000/- from the complainant Santosh Kirve in presence of Panch
witness, other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward, for not
detaining the complainant and his family members in chapter case filed
against them, to show favour to his family by keeping the amount under
the trunk in the rest room of Wadiwarhe Police Station.
7] In order to establish the case of the prosecution, three witnesses
are examined, PW1-Santosh Kirve, the complainant, PW 2-
J-1155-2018.doc
Chandrashekhar Kale, Panch witness and PW 3 PI Pradeep Ugale,
the Investigating Officer.
The complainant (PW 1) deposed before the Court that when he
approached Wadiwarhe Police Station to lodge complaint against
Ramesh Jadhav, Police Head Constable Bhamre registered his
complaint and at that time even Ramesh Jadhav came to the Police
Station and lodged a complaint against him, alongwith family members,
which was also registered by him.
As per the complainant, Bhamre told him that he will have to sit in
the lock up and chapter case would be registered against him and if he
do not want to sit in the Police Station, he will have to pay a sum of
Rs.5000/-. Thereafter, a phone call was received by him on his mobile
number from Shri Bhamre, who asked him to come to the Police
Station on 17.05.2010 alongwith three other persons against whom the
chapter case was to be registered alongwith an amount of Rs.5,000/-.
He narrated the details of the complaint lodged by him and the
instructions received by him while the trap was being laid and
accordingly on 18.05.2010 he went to the Police Station and met
Bhamre. He was asked to stay outside for some time and thereafter he
was called in the room of the Writer. According to PW 1, thereafter, the
accused directed the employee present to register chapter case against
the four persons and asked his mother, sister and brother and Panch
Kale to go outside. They went out, but the Panch remained near the
door and Bhamre demanded Rs.5,000/- by saying that if he did not
intend to be in the lock up, he should pay Rs.5000/-. Pursuant to the
demand, the complainant picked up the amount from his right side
back pocket of his pant and gave it to Bhamre, who accepted it by his
right hand and kept it under the government box. He gave the
indicated signal and the trap party arrived at the spot and Bhamre was
J-1155-2018.doc
grabbed by his wrist and the bribe amount which was kept under the
box was recovered.
In the cross-examination, a suggestion is given to the
complainant, that the accused had told him that chapter case have to
be registered against him and he told him not to register the chapter
case. He admit that, after the arrest of Bhamre, chapter case was not
initiated against him. The complainant admit that on 16.05.2010,
Bhamre made a phone call to him at evening time and called him to
Police Station on 17th in connection with the chapter case, but they did
not go to the Police Station as directed and instead he approached the
ACB office in the evening. He categorically admit in the cross-
examination that he gave money to the accused and there was one
more person present in the room, but he was not arrested.
8] The version of this witness is corroborated by PW 2 the shadow
Panch, Chandrashekhar Kale who was called by the ACB on
17.05.2010 and he was asked to report on the next day for the
purpose of arranging a trap, on the complaint filed by the complainant
Santosh Kirve.
Kirve informed that Police Hawaldar Bhamre had demanded
Rs.5,000/- for not initiating chapter case. PW 2 accompanied the
complainant, when in furtherance of the demand he visited him in the
Police Station.
PW 2 specifically state that he alongwith the complainant, his
mother, sister and brother went in the writers room of Police Station
and Kirve wished Bhamre and all of them were asked to sit outside.
Bhamre came out after one and half hour and called them in and they
went inside the rest room. According to him, there was a conversation
between Kirve and Bhamre in respect of the chapter case and
J-1155-2018.doc
thereafter, Bhamre asked one employee to bring chapter case register
and one person named Bhor had had taken note in the Register in
respect of Kirve.
Thereafter, Bhamre asked the other family members as well as
Panch to go out of the room, though he stayed at the door. PW 2
deposed that at that time Bhamre demanded bribe amount of Rs.5000/-
to Kirve, which was handed over to him, which he accepted and kept
below the box and he came out of the room with them.
He lead the raiding team to the box beneath which the amount
was kept, which was recovered and currency notes were compared
with the number of currency notes recorded in the Pre-trap
panchanama. Right hand fingers of Bhamre were examined under
ultraviolet lamp which revealed bluish-whitish shining and similarly the
currency notes also signaled presence of bluish-whitish shining.
9] PW 2, the Panch also deposed about the xerox copies of the five
pages of chapter case registered being obtained and being marked as
Article D.
PW 2 was subjected to cross-examination and he deposed that
from ACB office to Wadiwarhe Police Station the complainant did not
receive any phone call, nor he made any phone call to anybody. He
also categorically admit that the constable to whom the accused asked
to take entry in the register was present in the same room, in which the
accused was present, but he was not arrested. He categorically deny
the suggestion given to him that he did not hear the demand made by
the accused and not seen him while accepting the money.
The Pre-trap panchanama and post-trap panchanama are
exhibited through PW 2. The extract of chapter case No.63/2010
registered under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against Santosh, Nilesh,
J-1155-2018.doc
Tarabai and Soni Kirve is also compiled in the Paper-book as Article D
and it reveal that the chapter case is registered on 18.05.2010. The
extract of register also mention about the chapter case being registered
against Santosh Kirve and others at the instance of Ramesh Jadhav,
with reference to an incident dated 16.05.2010, which had occurred in
the village.
10] The Investigating Officer, PI ACB Pradeep Ugale, stepped into
the witness box as witness No.3 and he narrated the procedure
followed by him on the complaint being lodged by Kirve and he
remained consistent with the version of the complainant and the
shadow Panch PW 2.
The lengthy cross-examination do not reveal any material
affecting the credibility of the prosecution case and the complaint
lodged by the Investigating Officer is exhibited by him as Exhibit 32.
The map of the spot is exhibited as Exhibit 37, which give an idea
about the place of occurrence.
11] The accused submitted his say in defence and it is his stand that
the complainant and his father are engaged in the activity of illicit liquor
and various cases are registered against him and when he was
entrusted with the beat in the village, he had warned them about not
continuing with the activity, but still they continued with the same and it
is his specific stand that the bribe amount was offered to him, but when
he refused he was implicated falsely.
The accused do not deny that a complaint was lodged by
Jadhav and he received instructions from the Sr. PI that the
proceedings under Section 107 should be initiated against Kirve and
his family members and therefore he called them to Police Station, so
J-1155-2018.doc
as to inform that they should remain present in the Police station so
that they can be forwarded to the Executive Magistrate, Igatpuri.
According to him, the complainant intended that no chapter case
should be registered against him, but since he did not budge, he is
falsely implicated in the case.
It is with the aid of the above evidence, the learned Judge has
rendered finding of guilt against the accused and awarded sentence.
12] The learned counsel Mr. Aniket Nikam would vehemently submit
that the case of the prosecution is doubtful, as according to the
prosecution the amount of bribe was demanded so that he shall not be
made to sit in the lock up and not for the purpose of refraining himself
from registering the chapter case. It is the submission of Mr.Nikam
that the Appellant had initiated chapter proceedings against the
complainant and therefore he had an axe to grind against him, but after
his arrest, the chapter case was not initiated actually and according to
him there was no question of putting someone in the lock up on the
initiation of chapter proceedings.
According to him, the prosecution has not brought before the
Court the CDR to prove the fact of the call made by the Appellant to
the complainant, in respect of demand on 16.05.2010 asking him to
remain present in the Police Station. Though the complainant
according to him was asked to report to the police station on
17.05.2010, but he went to the Police Station on 18.05.2010, but on the
way there was no call received by him from the Appellant. According to
him the bribe amount was kept underneath the trunk as per the
prosecution, but the said trunk is not seized and bottom of the trunk is
not examined for finding the traces of Anthracene powder. He would
submit that there is no prior verification of the demand and since the
J-1155-2018.doc
'Demand' and 'Acceptance' is not conclusively proved, the Appellant is
entitled for acquittal.
The learned APP Mr.Agarkar, however, strongly oppose the
submission of Mr. Nikam and would submit that the prosecution has
clinchingly established the demand and its acceptance and, the
conviction imposed under the impugned Judgment is rightly recorded
alongwith the sentence imposed.
13] I have carefully perused the evidence placed on record of the trial
Court.
Time and again it has been held that proof of demand of illegal
gratification is a gravemen of the offence under Section 7 and Section
13 (1)(d) (i) (ii) and in absence thereof the charge would fail. Mere
acceptance of any amount by way of illegal gratification or recovery
dehors the proof of demand ipsofacto would not be sufficient to bring
home the charge and failure of the prosecution to prove the demand
of illegal gratification would prove fatal and mere recovery of the
amount from the person of the accused would not entail his conviction
under Section 7 and Section 13 of PC Act.
In the backdrop of the above proposition, when the prosecution
case as laid before the Sessions Court through three witness is
deciphered, it is evident that the complainant lodged the report with the
ACB stating that demand is made by the Police Head Constable in the
concerned Police Station, as on a chapter case being registered
against him, he is likely to be detained in lockup and if he wanted to
avoid that, a bribe amount should be paid to him. The submission of
Mr. Nikam that chapter case do not warrant arrest may be true, but for
a person like the complainant and his family members who are not
acquainted with law and its procedure, really apprehended that they
J-1155-2018.doc
will be put behind the lock, as chapter case is registered on the
complaint of Jadhav and it is to avoid the humiliation of being put in
lock up, the complainant and his entire family which included his
mother, sister and brother remained present before the Police officer.
In order to avoid, being put behind bar, the bribe amount was
demanded and any respectable member of the society, who wanted to
avoid this, the bribe amount was offered.
The attempt of Mr. Nikam, to point out that the bribe amount was
for not registering the chapter case and not for their detention in the
lock up and some confusion sought to be projected in my opinion, is of
no significance, as in the complaint lodged with the ACB, the
complainant (PW 1) has categorically stated the purpose for which the
bribe amount was demanded. It is also worth to note that when the
complainant alongwith his family members visited the Police Station, a
chapter case was already registered and that is fortified by the
Investigating Officer through whom Article 'D' has been exhibited and
even the extract of the chapter case register is produced during trial,
which clearly reveal that the case was in fact registered under Section
107 of Cr.P.C. against the complainant and his family members. For
an illiterate person with a rural background, who is unaware of the
purpose and the scope of chapter proceedings, he only knows that a
case is registered and when he was threatened that he will have to be
detained in the lock up, and bribe amount was demanded for avoiding
this, the prosecution has clearly established its case of demand of the
amount as well as its acceptance by the accused.
The version of the complainant is corroborated on all material
particulars of demand of the bribe when the complainant was alone in
the rest room, with the shadow Panch standing at the door and on
accepting the amount of bribe which was kept under the trunk/box,
J-1155-2018.doc
which was recovered at the instance of the Panch.
The prosecution has, thus, successfully proved the demand and
acceptance of the bribe amount, which was accepted as illegal
gratification, to show favour to the complainant and his family, by not
putting them in lockup. This was well within the powers of the Accused
under the pretext that on registration of chapter case, the arrest of the
family members of the complainant is a consequence, the bribe
amount, as demanded is paid by the complainant and whether the
apprehension was there in reality is not the question which deserve
any consideration.
14] The learned Special Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence
placed before him by the prosecution as accordingly he arrived at a
conclusion that the charge under Section 7 alongwith Section 13(1)(d)
alongwith Section 13(2) is proved against the accused by sufficient
evidence. There is no reason to express any doubt in the prosecution
case, as laid before the Court and it inspire confidence as there was
no reason why the complainant would have falsely implicated accused/
appellant working as Police Head Constable, the prosecution case is
rightly held to be established by reliable evidence.
The impugned Judgment do not suffer from any legal infirmity
and hence it is upheld.
Necessarily by upholding the conviction and sentence imposed,
the Appeal No.1155 of 2018 is dismissed.
[BHARATI DANGRE, J]
