Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Pruthuvakar Vadkavatil Balarunan on 31 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:20127
{1} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra,
Through - P.S. Kranti Chowk,
Aurangabad. ....Appellant
Versus
Pruthuvakar Vadkavatil Balarunan
Age: 40 yrs., Occu.: Traffic Supervisor,
Ashok Tours and Travels, Hotel
Aurangabad Ashok, Aurangabad. .....Respondent
(Ori. Accused)
.....
Advocate for Appellant : Mr.N.D.Batule
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 25 JULY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 31 JULY, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. State hereby takes exception to judgment and order dated
05-04-2004 passed by learned Special Judge, Aurangabad, in Special
Case No.26 of 1998 acquitting accused from charges under Sections
7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
FACTS OF CASE IN BRIEF
2. Present respondent was chargesheeted by Anti Corruption
{2} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
Bureau (ACB), Aurangabad on the premise that complainant's father
Ramchabilasing submitted a tender for package tour floated by
Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC). His tender was
accepted and tour was conducted from 10-10-1997 to 30-10-1997
and again on 12-10-1997 to 31-10-1997. Towards said tour, on
account of uses of two coaches, cheques for the tour amount were
released towards 75% amount. Son of Ramchabiilasing namely
Virendrasing Thakur, who was a Driver in ACB Aurangabad,
approached accused, who was a Traffic Supervisor, with a request to
release the cheques. It is the case of prosecution that accused
demanded bribe of Rs.4,000/- to do the needful. Virendrasing
lodged complaint (exh.16) with ACB, Aurangabad on the strength of
which ACB authorities planned and arranged trap, issued necessary
instructions to complainant and shadow pancha and raiding party
accompanied both of them and kept themselves waiting in lay for
receipt of signal from complainant regarding acceptance of bribe and
thereafter, on receiving signal, they apprehended accused.
ACB Officer lodged report exh.33 for above charge and after
completing investigation, and after obtaining sanction, accused was
tried by learned Special Court, who after conducting trial and on
appreciating evidence, held that prosecution failed to make out a
{3} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
case as evidence on behalf of prosecution was not found to be worthy
of credence and hence, present accused came to be acquitted.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, State has preferred instant
appeal.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS
On behalf of appellant State :
3. Learned APP appearing on behalf of appellant would point out
that there is no dispute about service of accused. That, there is
further no dispute that father of complainant was to receive cheque
for the tours conducted by him. It is pointed out that when
complainant himself approached seeking issuance of cheque by
tendering bill, it is alleged that, demand of Rs.4,000/- was raised.
Complainant himself has lodged report about bribe being demanded
and his complaint was duly noted. It is further pointed out that in
presence of Superintendent of Police, there was telephonic
conversation. Thus, there was demand of bribe.
4. Learned APP further pointed out that in presence of shadow
pancha, who is examined as PW2, there was again demand as well as
acceptance. That, ACB authorities on conducting raid, noticed traces
{4} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
of anthracene powder. Thus, according to learned APP, there is both
demand as well as acceptance.
5. It is pointed out that, evidence of PW1 complainant is
completely supported by PW2 shadow pancha and therefore, full
proof case was made out, however, learned trial Judge failed to
consider and appreciate the same and disbelieved prosecution
version. According to learned APP, there is improper appreciation of
evidence. Hence, learned APP seeks indulgence of this Court by
allowing the appeal.
On behalf of respondent - accused :
6. Countering the above submissions, learned counsel for
respondent pointed out that prosecution has miserably failed to make
out the case. He pointed out that, in fact father of the complainant,
who had filled tender and allegedly succeeded in the same, has not
been examined. He pointed out that, defence taken in trial Court is
that complainant's father had borrowed Rs.5,000/- as hand-loan
from accused and said amount was returned. That, there was
conversation in this regard to which PW2 shadow pancha was a
party. He pointed out that in cross-examination, PW2 shadow
{5} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
pancha has candidly admitted to that extent. Learned defence
counsel pointed out that accused has also examined defence witness,
who was working in the Accounts Department. Learned counsel
pointed out that, it is clearly emerging from the evidence that PW2
shadow pancha was not in the company of complainant and accused
at the time of alleged incident. Therefore, there is no corroboration
to the testimony of complainant, who had no locus to file complaint.
For above reasons, he urges to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT
7. In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of in
all three witnesses. Sum and substance of their evidence is as under :
PW1 Virendrasing Ramchabilasingh Thakur testified at exh.15
that he worked as Driver in ACB at Nagpur. He deposed about
tenders filled by his father with ITDC Aurangabad, both being
accepted and his father receiving cheque towards 75% amount and
he deposed that he came to Aurangabad at the instance of his father
and had approached accused and accused allegedly asked him to pay
amount for the work to be done. He claims to have initially paid
accused Rs.1,000/- but further demand of Rs.3,000/- was raised,
{6} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
however, he paid Rs.2,000/- and agreed to pay Rs.1,000/- more at
the time of final bill and even issued cheque towards remaining
Rs.1,000/-. He further deposed about telephonic contact being done
with accused. There was said to be demand of 5% of the bill amount,
however, complainant offered to pay bribe @ 3% of the bill amount
and so he lodged report exh.16. In his further evidence, he has
narrated the events which took place in the ACB office and necessary
instructions being given to him and shadow pancha and about
instructions to go together to the office of accused and handing over
tainted currency on demand.
In paragraph 6 of the examination-in-chief he narrated events
took place in the office i.e. ITDC office at Aurangabad and testified
that he and shadow pancha Mahd. Faiyyaz accompanied accused to
the Accounts Office. He deposed that while standing in varanda,
accused asked him to give Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, he held tainted
currency before him, which was accepted by accused and necessary
signal was relayed.
In cross-examination, he has admitted that, he does not know
when his father had submitted quotation. He admitted that his final
bill was after deduction of 5% service tax, but at the time of
quotation, service tax was not in force. He answered that, under his
{7} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
own signature, he did not tender any application. He answered that,
when he came to Aurangabad, while on leave, he had cheques signed
by his father, but he admitted about not stating about it in the report.
He admitted about not having talks with his father about demand of
accused for 5% extra charge. He answered that, telephonic
conversation between him and accused was recorded in the cassette.
However, he submitted that when he met Investigating OFficer, he
did not disclose about talks between him and accused to be recorded
in cassette. He admitted that there was no direct talk between him
and accused before making report. He answered that there was no
verification done prior to trap. In para 16 he answered that accused
had place to sit in the lobby near the recaption whereas Accounts
Section was 150 meters away from the reception. He admitted that
there were no talks about money at the counter of accused and
further admitted that there were no talks about money till they went
to old wing and also admitted about not telling accused about money
being brought.
8. PW2 Mohd. Fayyas Mohd. Umar shadow pancha after deposing
being summoned from ACB to act as pancha, being introduced to
complainant, going through his written complaint, deposed about
{8} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
procedure of application of anthracene powder done by ACB to the
currency and drawing panchanama exh.25. Regarding the events at
the office of accused, he deposed that he and complainant walked to
the hotel, complainant took him to the left side of the office, where a
person was sitting and showed that person papers and said person
told that file was lying in the Accounts Section and they accordingly
went there. In examination-in-chief itself he stated that when three
of them went towards Accounts Section, while standing in the
corridor, complainant told accused that he had brought money, on
which said person told him to give saying that henceforth, work
would not be done if there is no clarity in the approach and then
complainant handed over tainted currency to that person, who put it
in his pocket and thereafter they went to Accounts Section, after
which, complainant went to transmit signal from the corridor while
he and accused went in the Accounts Section and raiding party
approached accused.
While under cross-examination, in paragraph 7, he admitted
that there were no talks between complainant and accused till they
reach corridor of the old building. He further stated that ACB Officer
asked accused about the money and accused told that he had
received his money which Thakur had borrowed.
{9} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
PW3 is the Investigating Officer.
ANALYSIS
9. On analyzing above evidence, here it is clearly emerging more
particularly from the answers given in the cross-examination by PW1
complainant himself as well as PW2 shadow pancha that there is no
demand at the first instance from accused. Complainant appears to
have on his own accord declared about he carrying money. Even
independent witness PW2 shadow pancha has stated that he was not
party to the conversation between accused and complainant.
Therefore, there is no corroboration to the evidence of complainant
on the point of demand. Apparently, PW2 shadow pancha was not
present as it has come in his evidence that he was standing in
corridor and both complainant as well as PW2 shadow pancha admit
about there to be no conversation between complainant and accused
regarding bribe amount. With such evidence, very aspect of demand
comes under shadow of doubt.
10. Learned counsel for respondent accused submitted that father
of complainant, who had filled tenders and was to receive bills, has
not been examined. It is also further surprising and difficult to
{10} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
comprehend how complainant has tendered cheque under the
signature of his father during initial conversation. Though it is a case
of complainant that in presence of Superintendent, Central Bureau of
Investigation, Nagpur, there was telephonic conversation regarding
demand, such electronic evidence of conversation is not before the
Court.
11. Learned counsel for respondent pointed out that amount
accepted by accused was the money, which was borrowed by father
of complainant, and was so duly accepted. He invited attention of
this Court to the cross-examination of PW2 shadow pancha, who
candidly admits that the amount handed over during conversation
revealed to be return of hand loan. Very Investigating Officer in
cross-examination also has admitted about immediate statement
given by accused on apprehension that the amount received was
repayment of borrowed money. Statement of accused, after
immediate arrest, is also part of record. Thus, there is another
reason for doubting the demand of illegal gratification.
12. Perused the judgment under challenge. Learned trial Judge
apparently appreciated evidence of PW1 complainant, PW2 shadow
{11} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004
pancha and that of PW3 Investigating Officer and has observed that
case of prosecution is not worthy of credence. Sound reasons are
assigned for above findings. No infirmity or perversity is brought to
the notice of this Court. Consequently, no case on merits being made
out for interference, appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I
pass following order :
ORDER
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
