High Court

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD9 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.305 OF 2023Imran Rashid Siddiqui,Age 34 yrs., Occ. Labour,R/o 187-5, Imli Galli,Johari Ward, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad. … Applicant… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer,Police Station, Paithan,Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 2Amol Shesherao Jadhav,Age 34 yrs., Occ. Education,R/o Girnera Tanda, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. … Respondents...Mr. S.R. Chaudhari, Advocate for applicantMr. A.D. Wange, APP for respondent No.1...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE:26th JUNE, 2025 29_Cri.Appln_305_2023ORDER :( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973, initially for quashment of First InformationReport vide Crime No.445/2022 dated 10.12.2022 registered with PoliceStation, Paithan, for the offence punishable under Section 7-A of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and later on by way of amendment forquashing the charge sheet No.6/2024 i.e. proceedings in Special CaseNo.82/2024 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad.2Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.R. Chaudhari for applicant andlearned APP Mr. A.D. Wange for applicant No.1. Respondent No.2 thoughserved failed to appear. In order to cut short, it can be said that learnedAdvocate for applicant and learned APP have argued in support of theirrespective contentions. 3Respondent No.2 approached the Anti Corruption Bureau with acomplaint that he was in need of certified copies of five documents, whichare registered with Sub-Registrar’s office at Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist.Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. He met the applicant there and applicant agreedto take certified copies on behalf of complainant. Initially the applicant haddemanded amount of Rs.375/- for each document i.e. in all Rs.1,875/- and 39_Cri.Appln_305_2023amount of Rs.500/- for himself. The complainant felt that applicant wasdemanding illegal gratification/bribe for himself or for some other personand, therefore, he gave complaint. The Anti Corruption Bureau thenarranged for two panchas, took the complaint verification and madearrangements for verification of demand. The voice recorder was given tocomplainant, which he concealed on his person and went along with panchNo.1 to meet applicant on 08.12.2022. At that time, applicant demanded thesaid amount. When, in fact, the legal fees for certified copy was Rs.225/- foreach document, he demanded amount of Rs.2,375/- i.e. amount ofRs.1,875/- + Rs.500/-. It is stated that he had accepted the said amount inpresence of panch, but he became suspicious and, therefore, immediatelyreturned the said amount to complainant and under the pretext that hewould bring the receipt he went from the back door of Sub-Registrar’s office.The offence has been registered under Section 7-A of the Prevention ofCorruption Act. 4Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes aprovision that whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from anotherperson for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motiveor reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or byexercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a 49_Cri.Appln_305_2023public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbearsuch public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, thensuch person is liable to be punished. As per Section 2(d) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, where the word “undue advantage” has been defined, itmeans, any gratification whatever other than legal remuneration and theExplanation ‘A’ gives the explanation to gratification as not to pecuniarygratification or to gratifications estimable in money. Therefore, in order tobring the present case within the ingredients of Section 7-A of the Preventionof Corruption Act, it is now required to be seen, as to whether the factsdisclose the same. As per First Information Report and even the statementwhich appears to have been recorded subsequently also, the complainant hadmade the application with the office Sub-Registrar, Paithan for gettingcertified copies of five documents on 02.12.2022. Thereafter, he metapplicant in the said office, whereupon applicant told that since thedocuments are old, it would take time to search and, therefore, he will haveto give amount of Rs.375/- per document i.e. total Rs.1,875/- and his chargeswould be separate. These facts would disclose that without the interventionof applicant complainant had already filed the application for certified copiesand thereafter he met present applicant. Complainant states that on that dayitself i.e. on 02.12.2022 he felt that applicant was demanding bribe. Still hemade the complaint with ACB office in writing on 08.12.2022. He also states 59_Cri.Appln_305_2023that he came to know that fees which is prescribed by Government forcertified copy is Rs.20/- per page. It is not stated in First Information Reportor it has not come in anybody’s or any other witness’s statement thatcomplainant had made inquiry to the person who accepted his application forcertified copies as to what would be the estimate of certified copies. Anotherfact that will have to be considered is that complainant was aware thatapplicant was not a public servant working in the office of Sub-Registrar,Paithan. Then why complainant should engage the applicant for such work,would be a question ? Now, in the statement complainant also states thatapplicant is doing private work with Sub-Registrar’s office at Paithan. Thereare statements of two Stamp vendors-cum-Scribe Mr. Mahesh ShrirangMadke and Mr. Satish Kashinath Mule, who are doing the said work since last20-25 years respectively. They have stated that they know applicant since 13-14 years and they take help of applicant when it comes to the documentswhich are in Urdu or those are of Nizam era. They say that they are awarethat applicant charges for the services which he renders. Certainly privatepersons cannot do work in the Government offices in the capacity as Agent,but still if they are working, then it would be the matter of administration ofthe concerned office and they should stop such kind of menace, if it is there.But that does not mean that the charges which such person receives wouldamount to undue advantage as defined under Section 2(d) of the Prevention 69_Cri.Appln_305_2023of Corruption. Further, in order to attract Section 7-A of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, such act of accepting the amount or attempting to accept thesaid amount should be for himself or for any other person by undueadvantage as motive or reward to induce a public servant. Here, whateverthe conversation that was recorded through voice recorder and is formingpart of panchnama would reveal that everything was vague as regardsinvolvement of public servant. Even in the First Information Report as wellas statement of complainant it is not stated that applicant promised toinfluence a particular public servant responsible for issuing certified copies toget the certified copies for and on behalf of complainant for some amount. 5Learned APP points out the conversation i.e. transcript of therecording through voice recorder, wherein it is stated that though he hadasked amount of Rs.2,375/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.375/- per document plusRs.500/-; yet, thereafter he demanded Rs.200/- to Rs.250/- per documentand he has stated that rest would be for the signatures those are required tobe obtained. This shows that he wanted to influence somebody. Here, wewould like to say that the entire conversation cannot be read in piecemeal,but will have to be considered in its entirety. The conversation thereafterwent on and it appears that the amount fluctuated and at one point of timeinformant told him that he would give Rs.50/- and the applicant accepted 79_Cri.Appln_305_2023that. At the most, it can be said that he was accepting that amount forhimself, but it cannot be tagged or for influencing anybody. All theingredients of Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be saidto be made out from the entire material i.e. with the charge sheet. Therefore,with this material it would be unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial.Case is made out for quashing First Information Report and the proceedings.Hence, following order. ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed.ii)The proceedings in charge sheet No.6/2024 i.e. Special CaseNo.82/2024 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabadarising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.445/2022 dated10.12.2022 registered with Police Station, Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 7-A of the Preventionof Corruption Act, 1988, stands quashed and set aside as against applicantImran Rashid Siddiqui. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. )( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd