High Court
Legal Reasoning
-1- Cri.Appeal.134.2005IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2005Ashok S/o. Babasaheb Kasar, Age : 35 years, Occu. : Service, R/o. : Walki, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.… Appellant VersusThe State of Maharashtra… Respondent …Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for AppellantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Respondent – State...CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON : 10th DECEMBER, 2024PRONOUNCED ON :03rd JANUARY, 2025JUDGMENT :1.Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated08.02.2005 passed by Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special CaseNo.10 of 2001, holding appellant guilty for offence punishableunder sections 7, 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988, convict has invoked section 374 of Cr.P.C. 2.In brief, prosecution was launched against presentappellant on report lodged by PW1 Sachin, alleging that, NagarTaluka Police station booked brother of complainant in one crimebearing No. 55 of 2000 and arrested him. PSI Tangade threatened
Legal Reasoning
-2- Cri.Appeal.134.2005to detain mother of complainant also and from abstaining to do sohe demanded Rs.25,000/-. On negotiations with complainant, figurewas brought down to Rs.8,000/- in two installments. Instead ofcomplying and paying bribe, PW1 Sachin approached ACBauthorities and gave report. ACB Officer summoned panchas,introduced them to complainant, apprised them about nature ofcomplaint and thereafter planned and arranged trap of whichnecessary instructions were given to complainant and panchas.They were also made aware about the procedure of application ofanthracene powder to the currency which was instructed to behanded over to accused on demand and then to relay signal.3.Accordingly, on given date and time, complainant andshadow pancha, visited police station. On behalf of Officer Tangadepresent appellant demanded bribe and after accepting it,complainant gave signal and he was duly apprehended. Afterinvestigation, he was charge-sheeted and tried, resulting intoconviction. Hence, the instant appeal.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of Appellant :4.Learned counsel for appellant pointed out that,apparently there is false implication. That, appellant is a Constable. -3- Cri.Appeal.134.2005He never put up any demand nor he had any authority to releasebrother of complainant. That, PSI a superior officer had demandedbribe. However, to save him, present appellant is made scapegoat.He had never put up any demand. That, very complainant in hisevidence has admitted that there was demand by PSI Tangade andhe had no work with present appellant. That, sanctioning authorityhas also admitted that complaint was against Officer Tangade, buthe is now charge-sheeted or tried. 5.Learned counsel further submitted that, evencomplainant and shadow pancha are not consistent and supportingto each other. That, whatever details were narrated bycomplainant regarding the events taking place at police station,are not narrated by shadow pancha in spite of both claiming to betogether. That, evidence of complainant and shadow pancha is alsofull of material omissions, contradictions and variances on thepoint of timing of pre-trap panchanama. For all above reasons, learned counsel questions thefindings and conclusion reached at by learned trial court and urgesto allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.On behalf of Respondent – State :-6.Countering the above submissions, learned APP -4- Cri.Appeal.134.2005pointed out that, though demand was by Officer Tangade, presentappellant acted on behalf of said officer. He demanded and evenaccepted the currency. He was caught red handed. Therefore, bothdemand and acceptance being available, it is his submission that,no fault can be found in the appreciation or conclusion reached atby learned trial Judge and so prays to dismiss the appeal. ANALYSIS7.Fundamental grounds raised in appeal is that, therewas no demand by appellant. In fact, demand was raised by hissuperior, who was a PSI. That, he is let off and to save him,appellant is made scapegoat. That, even complainant andsanctioning authority admit that, demand was by PSI Tangade,who was conducting investigation and present appellant beingconstable had no power or authority to favour complainant.Secondly, there is variance in the timing regarding trap appearingin the pre-trap panchanama. 8.On above lines, if evidence of complainant and shadowpancha which is crucial, is carefully and meticulously appreciated,it does emerge that, as brother of complainant was in custody ofTaluka Nagar Police Station, wherein Officer Tangade was said tobe an Investigating Officer. It also emerges from complainant’sevidence that, complainant had approached said Officer Tangade to -5- Cri.Appeal.134.2005allow him to meet his brother and had requested not to detain hismother, for which Officer Tangade initially demanded Rs.25,000/-.However, on negotiations, he agreed to accept Rs.8,000/- in twoinstallments. Complainant also deposed that, he was asked to payamount to the Constable and accordingly complainant had metpresent appellant. So much part of the evidence of complainant hasremained intact. Therefore, complainant had met presentappellant on the next day and complainant had further deposedthat present appellant told that they have collected Rs.25,000/-from other accused and they had demanded Rs.10,000/- and hencecomplainant had again approached PSI Tangade and had told himthat it was not possible to meet such demand, upon which PSITangade allegedly told this witness to pay whatever amount waspossible and it was finally agreed to pay Rs.8,000/- in twoinstallments. It has also come in the evidence of complainant that,on the day of trap, around 7:00 p.m., he and pancha, both visitedpolice station, met present appellant, who specifically askedcomplainant to wait and then he went and returned back in 20minutes and thereafter again questioned complainant whether hebrought the amount and further on it being handed over, heaccepted the same and kept it in his watch pocket of his pant. In cross, paragraph no.4, complainant though admittedthat he had no work with accused Kasar and bribe was to be paid to -6- Cri.Appeal.134.2005PSI Tangade, to a further suggestion by very defence it has come incross that, he was instructed that he should pay on demand topresent appellant or to anyone else on the say of PSI Tangade. Thisvery suggestion shows that present appellant too was aware thathe 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 accusednear the gate, accused questioned complainant whether amount isbrought and complainant removed the amount and paid it topresent appellant, who accepted it, further counted it and kept it inthe watch pocket of his pant. Consequently, on the evidence of complainant andshadow 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 himthat he accepted amount on behalf of PSI Tangade. He merelyanswered that he is made scapegoat and false documents areprepared. He does not set up a case that he was not aware that theamount which he received was illegal gratification. On thecontrary, shadow pancha and Investigating Officer, both -7- Cri.Appeal.134.2005consistently speak that sensing presence of raiding party appellanttried to flee by jumping over the wall. His such conduct also goes toshow that, he was aware that he was about to be apprehended foraccepting bribe. 11.Therefore, here, on complete re-appreciation, there isboth, demand as well as acceptance by accused though on behalf ofOfficer PSI Tangade, but with full knowledge that amount was to bereceived by way of illegal gratification. Resultantly, sine qua non ofdemand as well as acceptance are patently substantiated. Defenceso put has no merits. Section 7 of P.C. Act specifically takes in itssweep act of present appellant for acting on behalf of PSI Tangade.Hence, finding no merits in the appeal, I proceed to pass followingorder:- ORDERThe criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale