Bombay High Court
Ashok Babasaheb Kasar vs The State Of Mah on 3 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:40
-1- Cri.Appeal.134.2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2005
Ashok S/o. Babasaheb Kasar,
Age : 35 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. : Walki, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
...
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Respondent - State
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 10th DECEMBER, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 03rd JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
08.02.2005 passed by Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case
No.10 of 2001, holding appellant guilty for offence punishable
under sections 7, 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, convict has invoked section 374 of Cr.P.C.
2. In brief, prosecution was launched against present
appellant on report lodged by PW1 Sachin, alleging that, Nagar
Taluka Police station booked brother of complainant in one crime
bearing No. 55 of 2000 and arrested him. PSI Tangade threatened
-2- Cri.Appeal.134.2005
to detain mother of complainant also and from abstaining to do so
he demanded Rs.25,000/-. On negotiations with complainant, figure
was brought down to Rs.8,000/- in two installments. Instead of
complying and paying bribe, PW1 Sachin approached ACB
authorities and gave report. ACB Officer summoned panchas,
introduced them to complainant, apprised them about nature of
complaint and thereafter planned and arranged trap of which
necessary instructions were given to complainant and panchas.
They were also made aware about the procedure of application of
anthracene powder to the currency which was instructed to be
handed over to accused on demand and then to relay signal.
3. Accordingly, on given date and time, complainant and
shadow pancha, visited police station. On behalf of Officer Tangade
present appellant demanded bribe and after accepting it,
complainant gave signal and he was duly apprehended. After
investigation, he was charge-sheeted and tried, resulting into
conviction.
Hence, the instant appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of Appellant :
4. Learned counsel for appellant pointed out that,
apparently there is false implication. That, appellant is a Constable.
-3- Cri.Appeal.134.2005
He never put up any demand nor he had any authority to release
brother of complainant. That, PSI a superior officer had demanded
bribe. However, to save him, present appellant is made scapegoat.
He had never put up any demand. That, very complainant in his
evidence has admitted that there was demand by PSI Tangade and
he had no work with present appellant. That, sanctioning authority
has also admitted that complaint was against Officer Tangade, but
he is now charge-sheeted or tried.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that, even
complainant and shadow pancha are not consistent and supporting
to each other. That, whatever details were narrated by
complainant regarding the events taking place at police station,
are not narrated by shadow pancha in spite of both claiming to be
together. That, evidence of complainant and shadow pancha is also
full of material omissions, contradictions and variances on the
point of timing of pre-trap panchanama.
For all above reasons, learned counsel questions the
findings and conclusion reached at by learned trial court and urges
to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
On behalf of Respondent - State :-
6. Countering the above submissions, learned APP
-4- Cri.Appeal.134.2005
pointed out that, though demand was by Officer Tangade, present
appellant acted on behalf of said officer. He demanded and even
accepted the currency. He was caught red handed. Therefore, both
demand and acceptance being available, it is his submission that,
no fault can be found in the appreciation or conclusion reached at
by learned trial Judge and so prays to dismiss the appeal.
ANALYSIS
7. Fundamental grounds raised in appeal is that, there
was no demand by appellant. In fact, demand was raised by his
superior, who was a PSI. That, he is let off and to save him,
appellant is made scapegoat. That, even complainant and
sanctioning authority admit that, demand was by PSI Tangade,
who was conducting investigation and present appellant being
constable had no power or authority to favour complainant.
Secondly, there is variance in the timing regarding trap appearing
in the pre-trap panchanama.
8. On above lines, if evidence of complainant and shadow
pancha which is crucial, is carefully and meticulously appreciated,
it does emerge that, as brother of complainant was in custody of
Taluka Nagar Police Station, wherein Officer Tangade was said to
be an Investigating Officer. It also emerges from complainant's
evidence that, complainant had approached said Officer Tangade to
-5- Cri.Appeal.134.2005
allow him to meet his brother and had requested not to detain his
mother, for which Officer Tangade initially demanded Rs.25,000/-.
However, on negotiations, he agreed to accept Rs.8,000/- in two
installments. Complainant also deposed that, he was asked to pay
amount to the Constable and accordingly complainant had met
present appellant. So much part of the evidence of complainant has
remained intact. Therefore, complainant had met present
appellant on the next day and complainant had further deposed
that present appellant told that they have collected Rs.25,000/-
from other accused and they had demanded Rs.10,000/- and hence
complainant had again approached PSI Tangade and had told him
that it was not possible to meet such demand, upon which PSI
Tangade allegedly told this witness to pay whatever amount was
possible and it was finally agreed to pay Rs.8,000/- in two
installments. It has also come in the evidence of complainant that,
on the day of trap, around 7:00 p.m., he and pancha, both visited
police station, met present appellant, who specifically asked
complainant to wait and then he went and returned back in 20
minutes and thereafter again questioned complainant whether he
brought the amount and further on it being handed over, he
accepted the same and kept it in his watch pocket of his pant.
In cross, paragraph no.4, complainant though admitted
that he had no work with accused Kasar and bribe was to be paid to
-6- Cri.Appeal.134.2005
PSI Tangade, to a further suggestion by very defence it has come in
cross that, he was instructed that he should pay on demand to
present appellant or to anyone else on the say of PSI Tangade. This
very suggestion shows that present appellant too was aware that
he was to receive bribe amount on behalf of PSI Tangade.
9. Shadow pancha has also in his evidence stated that,
when they went to police station, on 7:00 p.m., they met accused
near the gate, accused questioned complainant whether amount is
brought and complainant removed the amount and paid it to
present appellant, who accepted it, further counted it and kept it in
the watch pocket of his pant.
Consequently, on the evidence of complainant and
shadow pancha, there is both, demand as well as acceptance.
10. On visiting statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
answered by appellant, there is no specific defence set up by him
that he accepted amount on behalf of PSI Tangade. He merely
answered that he is made scapegoat and false documents are
prepared. He does not set up a case that he was not aware that the
amount which he received was illegal gratification. On the
contrary, shadow pancha and Investigating Officer, both
-7- Cri.Appeal.134.2005
consistently speak that sensing presence of raiding party appellant
tried to flee by jumping over the wall. His such conduct also goes to
show that, he was aware that he was about to be apprehended for
accepting bribe.
11. Therefore, here, on complete re-appreciation, there is
both, demand as well as acceptance by accused though on behalf of
Officer PSI Tangade, but with full knowledge that amount was to be
received by way of illegal gratification. Resultantly, sine qua non of
demand as well as acceptance are patently substantiated. Defence
so put has no merits. Section 7 of P.C. Act specifically takes in its
sweep act of present appellant for acting on behalf of PSI Tangade.
Hence, finding no merits in the appeal, I proceed to pass following
order:-
ORDER
The criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
