Bombay High Court

Ram Munjaji Salgar vs State Of Maha on 9 August, 2024

2024:BHC-AUG:17491

                                                 -1-                Cri.Appeal.113.2004

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2004

              Ram S/o. Munjaji Salgar,
              Age : 53 years, Occu. : Service,
              As Talathi Sajja - Naikota,
              Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani,
              R/o. Naikota, Tq. Sonpeth,
              Dist. Parbhani.                                       ... Appellant
                                                                      (Orig. Accused)
                          Versus

              The State of Maharashtra,
              Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
              Parbhani.                                             ... Respondent
                                                                   (Orig. Complainant)

                                                 ...
              Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke h/f. Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Appellant
                          Mr. A.A.A. Khan, APP for Respondent - State
                                                 ...

                                            CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                      RESERVED ON : 24th JULY 2024
                                   PRONOUNCED ON : 9th AUGUST 2024

              JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and

order of conviction recorded by learned Special Judge, Parbhani

dated 10.02.2004 in Special Case No.06 of 2000, convicting

appellant for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d)

punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (P.C. Act).

-2- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

PROSECUTION CASE IN NUTSHELL IS AS UNDER

2. Prosecution was launched against present appellant on

complaint of PW1 Ambadas that he had approached accused

Talathi for effecting mutation in 7/12 extract incorporating entries

on the basis of a decree passed by the court. Accused Talathi

demanded Rs.2,000/- for doing said work and there was settlement

in Rs.900/-. Complainant was not willing to pay bribe and therefore

he approached ACB authorities and lodged report.

On the basis of complaint, PW4 P.I. More summoned

panchas, introduced them to complainant, informed them about

nature of complaint, panchas and complainant were explained

procedure of trap and were instructed to go together to pay bribe

on demand. Accused, after being approached by PW1 Ambadas and

PW2 Shankar, put up a demand, complainant handed over

demanded amount i.e. tainted currencies, after which complainant

gave signal and raid was carried out. Further which PW4 P.I. More

lodged report, carried out investigation and charge-sheeted

accused.

Trial was conducted by Special Judge, Parbhani, who

accepted the prosecution case as proved, vide judgment and order

dated 10.02.2004, convicted appellant i.e. for offence under

-3- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act.

Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment and order,

instant appeal has been preferred, which is now questioned before

this court by virtue of present appeal.

EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN TRIAL COURT

3. PW1 Ambadas, complainant, deposed that, after he

decided to effect mutation entry in the name of his son, he

approached accused Talathi and he advised him to seek orders

from the court and said that without orders of the court, he cannot

effect mutations, and thereafter, not finding him supporting, he

was cross examined by learned APP, wherein he denied demand of

Rs.2,000/- by accused Talathi, there was settlement in Rs.900/-

and thereafter he approached ACB office and lodged complaint.

PW2 Shankar - shadow pancha, denied that in ACB

office complainant told him that accused was demanded bribe for

effecting mutations and consequently finding shadow pancha also

not supporting, by seeking permission of learned trial court,

learned APP subjected prosecution's own witness to cross examine.

However, he also denied about complainant informing him in ACB

-4- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

office regarding demand of Rs.2,000/- from accused and ultimately

the amount of bribe was settled at Rs.900/-. Consequently, he has

accepted the procedure explained by ACB Officer and panchanama

was drawn. But, he again denied after going to the house of

accused, while in company of complainant, the complainant asked

him whether mutation in respect of his land was effected or not

and conversation of 7/12 extract, accused demanding bribe

amount and it being paid by complainant. In fact he stated that,

accused has received the amount given by complainant. He again

admitted that, accused received amount by his right hand and then

counted the said amount by both hands and kept it in his pocket.

He admitted that, after raiding party entered, he pointed towards

accused as the person receiving the amount. He identified the

currency and also 7/12 extract seized by ACB authorities.

PW3 Pimpalgaonkar is the Sanctioning Authority, who

deposed about working as S.D.O. Parbhani from the year 1999 to

2001, receiving letter and papers from ACB for sanction of

prosecution. He deposed that, after perusal of the papers, he found

it a fit case to accord sanction and accordingly granted sanction.

PW4 P.I. More is the Investigating Officer, who narrated

all steps taken by him regarding receiving complaint, calling

-5- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

panchas, explaining procedure to complainant and panchas,

planning and arranging raid, and on receiving signal from

complainant, successfully carrying out the trap, apprehending

accused and regarding further steps taken by him till filing charge-

sheet.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant :-

4. Pointing from above evidence, learned counsel for

appellant submitted that, in this case prosecution has utterly failed

to prove essential requirements of demand and acceptance. He

would strenuously submit that, here, very complainant has not

supported the prosecution. That, even shadow pancha has not

supported the prosecution, and therefore, very essentials of

demand and acceptance are not proved by prosecution. He took

this court through the essential requirements of section 7 and

13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and would submit that to prove the said

charges, there has to be reliable and trustworthy evidence

regarding both, demand of illegal gratification as well as

acceptance. That, as there is no proof of demand and acceptance,

said charges cannot be said to be proved. He pointed out that, here,

neither complainant nor the shadow pancha, who are star

witnesses of prosecution, have not supported the prosecution and

therefore case of prosecution has collapsed in trial court.

-6- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

On the point of essential requirements for proving the

charges, learned counsel for appellant sought reliance on the

following rulings :-

1) P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. The Dist. Inspector of Police & Anr., 2015 ALL SCR 3171

2) Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, 2010 Cri.L.J. 2419

3) Sopan Kadu Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 (3) ABR (CRI) 790

On behalf of Respondent :-

5. In answer to above, learned APP submitted that,

unfortunately though complainant and pancha witness have not

supported, there is evidence of Investigating Officer and the case of

prosecution stood proved through him. He has received complaint,

he had arranged and planned trap and also successfully executed

the same. That, accused was apprehended while in possession of

tainted currencies. That, there is no explanation for said

possession. Therefore, charges are cogently proved. According to

him, though prosecution witnesses have not supported,

circumstances brought on record coupled with evidence of

Investigating Officer, case of prosecution has been cogently proved.

On this count, he seeks reliance on the judgment and order of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of

N.C.T. of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731.

                                      -7-                     Cri.Appeal.113.2004




                                ANALYSIS

6. Here, admittedly, PW1 Eknath - complainant has

retracted and resiled and has not supported prosecution. Likewise,

PW2 Shankar - shadow pancha, who was party to the planning and

arranging raid and even laying trap, has not supported

prosecution. In fact, he is flip-flop witness. Initially, he denied

complainant informing about demand and at one point of time he

admitted that visit was paid to ACB authorities. He subsequently

denied going through the contents of complaint. Therefore, this

witness was fickle minded and is a flip-flop witness. Thus, evidence

of only Investigating Officer and Sanctioning Authority has

remained for consideration.

7. Learned APP has sought reliance on the decision in the

case of Neeraj Dutta (Supra), wherein recently the Hon'ble Apex

court has enunciated principles by discussing various precedents

in paragraph no.68 and the same could be summarized as under :-

"68. .......

"(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the

-8- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and

(ii) of the Act.

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act."

(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the

-9- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act."

8. The ratio i.e. spelt out in paragraph no.70 of the

aforesaid Judgment i.e. in absence of evidence of complainant, it is

permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a

public servant under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) r/w section

13(2) of P.C.Act based on other evidence adduced by the

prosecution.

9. On one hand, learned counsel for appellant strenuously

submit that, there is no cogent and reliable evidence about demand

as well as acceptance and both star witnesses of prosecution have

not supported prosecution. While on the other hand, learned APP

-10- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

sought reliance on above rulings and would emphasize that merely

because witnesses have turned hostile, there is no good ground to

reject the prosecution version. According to him, the Hon'ble Apex

court has held that even if the witnesses are hostile, if there is

corroboration to other aspect of the case, guilt can be judged and

even recorded.

10. Admittedly, it is also fairly settled that, for establishing

charge of section 7 and section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of P.C.

Act, proof of demand and proof of acceptance are sine qua non.

Neither mere demand nor mere acceptance are itself sufficient to

hold the charges as proved. In the above ruling, it has been

recently observed that, in cases where witnesses have turned

hostile, still guilt can be recorded by taking recourse to other

circumstances. The fact that the witnesses are hostile does not

result in automatic rejection of the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex

court has held that, when witness turns hostile, his entire

testimony need not be discarded, but so much part of the evidence

which can be relied, can be put to use.

11. Keeping in mind such observations, if we revert back to

the case in hand, here, it is noticed that the complainant from

inception itself has not supported the prosecution on the point of

-11- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

demand. Shadow pancha, whose testimony is looked upon as a

corroborative piece of evidence, has also unfortunately turned his

back from prosecution and he has denied about complainant

informing in ACB office that there was demand of illegal bribe. He

has categorically denied that instructions were given and that he

signed the complaint after verified it. Consequently, both star

witnesses, complainant and shadow pancha, have not supported

the prosecution. Mere evidence that remained is of Investigating

Officer, but on sole testimony of Investigating Officer, unless

demand and acceptance is conclusively proved, case of prosecution

cannot be accepted. Likewise, sanctioning authority has come into

picture at later point of time i.e. after all transactions which took

place pre-trap and post trap. Role of sanctioning authority was

only confined to administrative approval for sanction.

12. Here, it is noticed that, though complainant had

allegedly approached ACB authorities, there is no verification of

very demand prior to planning and executing trap. When

complainant and shadow pancha, who were the only star witnesses

on the point of demand and acceptance, having resiled, in view of

above recent law, other circumstances were expected to be proved

by prosecution. But, here, no distinct circumstances to take

recourse to are brought to the notice of this court by the learned

-12- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

APP. It is also fairly settled that, mere possession of tainted

currency from the accused is not itself sufficient to draw inference

unless demand of illegal gratification has been demonstrated and

substantiated. As stated above, evidence as regards to very

demand is here not getting proved. It is pointed out by learned

counsel for appellant that, the work for which there was said to be

demand, was actually and already done prior to the episode of

alleged trap, and therefore, on such count also prosecution version

comes under shadow of doubt. In the light of above submissions, it

is noticed that, complainant's work was already done prior to

alleged trap. Consequently, here, there are no reliable

circumstances also to look into as held by the Hon'ble Apex court

in the above referred judgment.

13. Perused the judgment. Learned trial court has

reproduced the contents of the complaint at Exh.37 and the same

are held to be proved through Investigating Officer PW4 P.I. More

and on appreciating his testimony, learned trial court has accepted

prosecution version. Foundational facts, which were within the

knowledge of complainant and shadow pancha, cannot be said to be

established from the sole testimony of Investigating Officer.

Consequently, for above reasons, appellant succeeds.

-13- Cri.Appeal.113.2004

14. The above discussion and features noticed by this court

on re-appreciation are not taken into account by learned trial

Judge and hence interference is called for. Hence, the following

order :-

ORDER

I) Criminal Appeal stands allowed.

II) The conviction awarded to Ram S/o. Munjaji Salgar in Special Case No. 06 of 2000 by learned Special Judge, Parbhani on 10.02.2004 for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stands quashed and set aside.

III) The appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.