High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2004Dashrath s/o Vithoba Kamble,Age; 45 years, Occ; Service as Talathi,R/o; Gunjegaon, Tq. Gangakhed,Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani… APPELLANT V E R S U SThe State of MaharashtraThrough Public Prosecutor,High Court of Judicature atBombay, Bench at Aurangabad....RESPONDENT ………………………………………..Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. S.S.ChapalgaonkarA.G.P. for the Respondent/State : Mr.S.K.Shirse………………………………………… CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. Date of Reservation : 12.08.2024Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2024J U D G M E N T :1.The present appellant is held guilty for the offences 2criappeal303.04 judgmentpunishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the‘PC Act’). For the offence punishable under Section 7, he issentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to payfine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo RigorousImprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable underSections 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, he is sentencedto suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine ofRs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo further RigorousImprisonment for 3 months. The Special Court has directed boththe above sentences to run concurrently. Herein after the partiesare referred to as per their original nomenclatures. 2.The facts in short are that one Dnyanoba P.Narayanrao Ballal, the de-facto complainant approached AntiCorruption Bureau, Parbhani and lodged a complaint dated15.02.2000 stating that he is having lands at Dhobewadi in GutNo. 57 and 58 standing in the name of his sister namelyTrigunabai wife of deceased brother Sopanrao Ballal. The said 3criappeal303.04 judgmentland was purchased by him about 25 to 30 years back. Thename of Trigunabai was mutated in the 7/12 extract incultivation column for the year 1997-98, without any notice to theinformant. He preferred an appeal to the Sub Divisional Officer,Selu (in short ‘SDO’ ). The said SDO passed an order directingparties to maintain status-quo. In view of the status-quo, theTalathi (for short ‘the accused’) had again shown the name ofTrigunabai in the 7/12 extract. Thereafter, an appeal waspreferred and the same was pending before the Dy. Collector,Parbhani.3.On 14.02.2000, the de facto informant Dnyanoba metthe accused in his office and requested him to give copy of 7/12extract. The accused told him that his case is pending before theDy. Collector, Parbhani and if he wants copy of the 7/12 extractin the name of Trigunabai, then he will have to pay Rs. 2,000/-for it. The informant bargained with the accused and settledamount to Rs. 500/-. The accused thereafter, called informantDnyanoba to come on next morning in the office alongwith 4criappeal303.04 judgmentamount. Since he was not willing to pay amount, he approachedto the Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint.4.On receiving complaint the Investigation Officerdecided to lay a trap. He called two panchas for that purposeand prepared a team. It is further the case of prosecution thaton 15.02.2000 Dnyanoba alongwith a shadow pancha witnessMore (PW-2) went to the office of accused alongwith the amountof bribe. The accused again demanded an amount fromDnyanoba and accepted the same in his office. Immediately, hewas apprehended by the raiding party. After completion of theinvestigation and after obtaining the sanction a charge-sheetcame to be filed against the accused. After considering the oraland documentary evidence the trial Court held theappellant/accused guilty of the offence punishable underSections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the P.C. Act as above.Hence this appeal.5.Learned Advocate for the appellant/accused submits 5criappeal303.04 judgmentthat the prosecution has failed to prove aforesaid offences beyondreasonable doubt. The amount that was paid by the complainantwas towards the arrears of land revenue i.e. Rs. 498/-. Under thepretext of giving amount of arrears of land revenue the informanthanded over the amount and soon thereafter, the raiding partycame and apprehended the accused.6.He further submits that there is no proper sanctionaccorded by the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authorityhad no power to accord sanction. The trial Court has failed toappreciate evidence in its proper perspective. The demand is alsonot proved. Thus, the conviction and sentence deserves to bequashed and set aside. The appellant tried to make out a casethat after receiving the amount of Rs. 500/-, the accused wasabout to issue receipt and for that purpose he turned towardscupboard to get receipt book, before he took out the receipt bookto write receipt, the raid was conducted and the trap was shownsuccessful. 7.Learned APP opposed the appeal stating that in the 6criappeal303.04 judgmentpresent case the demand is clearly proved. The accused hasaccepted the amount. The amount is found with the accused.The blue shine traces of the anthracene powder are seen on thefinger tips of the accused. He, thus, submits that the trial Courthas rightly held the accused guilty and has rightly convicted him.Therefore, no interference is required and prays for rejection ofthe appeal. The learned APP submits that the details of arrears ofland revenue are not at all correct. The arrears of land revenueamount was total less than Rs. 10/- and there is no question ofaccepting the amount of Rs. 500/-, when the arrears were noteven Rs. 10/-.8.To appreciate the case, this Court has gone throughthe evidence, record and proceedings9.Dnyanoba (PW-1) in his evidence stated about theearlier demand of dated 14.02.2000. It has come in his evidencethat on the date of trap he was instructed to go alongwith ashadow witness i.e. panch Ramchandra More (PW-2), after giving
Legal Reasoning
7criappeal303.04 judgmentdemonstration as to how the anthracene powder works and aftergiving necessary instructions the raiding party started fromParbhani by a jeep towards Railway Station, Gangakhed. FromRailway Station, Dnyanoba and Ramchandra More went to theoffice of accused by walk. They were followed by other members ofthe raiding party. When they both went in the room of theaccused he was not present there. They both therefore, waitedfor some time near the office of accused. After 10 minutes whenaccused came there, the Complainant demanded 7/12 extractfrom him. Accused took out the book of 7/12 extract from hiscupboard and started writing on it by asking as to whether theComplainant had brought the amount. The Complainantinformed that he had brought the amount. After completion ofwriting 7/12 extract, the accused handed over the same to theComplainant and demanded the amount. The Complainant tookthe said 7/12 extract and paid the amount to the accused. Theaccused accepted the amount by his right hand and put it in hisright hands heap pocket of pant. As decided, the Complainantgave signal to the raiding party. The raiding party came in the 8criappeal303.04 judgmentroom of the accused and asked the shadow pancha as to wherethe amount is kept by the accused. The shadow pancha told thatthe accused had accepted the amount and has kept in his righthand heap pocket of pant. Thereafter, the Complainant was askedto go outside the office. After some time the Complainant wascalled in the office. His both hands were examined in the light ofultra violate lamp and the blue shining of the anthracene powderwas found on his hands. He identified the currency notes whichwere given to the accused.10.In the cross-examination the situation of room wherethe appellant/accused was sitting is taken on record. It is statedthat the raiding party came from southern side on receiving thesignal from the Complainant. The portion Mark-A of hisstatement also came to be exhibited. The statement Exhibit-A isthat the earlier Talathi had taken entry in the name of Trigunabaiin 7/12 extract and had given extract to the Complainant. Healso exhibited the portion Mark-B from his statement dated17.02.2000 to the effect (his statement recorded by Inspector 9criappeal303.04 judgmentMore on 17.02.2000. The said portion is correctly recorded as perhis statement made by him. The 7/12 extracts seized from theComplainant after the trap, are admitted by the accused.Therefore they are marked Exhibits 9 to 12. It is stated that hewas Sarpanch of the Grampanchyat Sahajpur (Jawala) about 20years ago. The question was put to this witness in the cross-examination that on 12.02.2000 the Complainant had been tothe accused for 7/12 extract and on that day the accused toldhim that there are arrears of land revenue of Rs. 498 and theComplainant has to pay that amount. Since the amount ofarrears of land revenue was demanded, the Complainant gotannoyed. He denied that the amount of Rs. 498/- was towardsthe arrears of land revenue.11.More, (PW-2), the shadow pancha deposed that he wascalled in the office of ACB on 15.02.2000. There, he wasinstructed to act as panch. A trap was prepared by givingnecessary instructions. The demonstration of anthracene powderwas given. He deposed on the same lines of the Complainant. 10criappeal303.04 judgment12.In the cross-examination he accepted that there wasno specific words used as bribe amount. The accused simplyasked as to whether the amount is brought, to which theComplainant answered in the affirmative. The suggestion wasput to him in that in fact the amount that was paid was towardsthe amount of arrears of land revenue, it is denied by thiswitness. This witness proved the panchanama.13.Pimpalgaonkar, (PW-3), Dy. Collector, Usmanabad,accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. This witnessdeposed that he granted sanction after being satisfied that theprosecution has made out a case and after going through thepapers of investigation. He proved the sanction order (Exh. 27).He also deposed that the SDO is the competent authority toappoint and remove Class-III employees within his jurisdiction. 14.In his cross-examination, he accepted that format ofsanction order was received by him alongwith letter (Exh. 26). Heproduced on record sanction order alongwith application Exh. 27. 11criappeal303.04 judgmentHe denied the suggestion that he has only copied down theformat of sanction order. He accepts that he did not make anychange in the wording of the draft as it was not found necessary.He deposed that he made some changes marked as A, B, C and Din the draft sanction order, which were marked by his clerk. Hehas prepared the sanction order by giving directions to his clerkand told him to insert portion A, B, C and D in it. It was asked tothis witness that if a person is in arrears of land revenue, no7/12 can be issued to such person. It is specific answer thatthere is no such practice, neither there is any such rule, whenany person is in arrears of land revenue, the department followsprocedure by issuing demand notice to such person andthereafter the property is attached. 15.PW-4 Rajendra More, working with Anti CorruptionBureau at the relevant time. He stated about the investigation,obtaining of sanction order etc. He proved the complaint lodgedby him dated 15.02.2000. In his cross-examination, he could nottell as to whether the same is the draft sanction order while 12criappeal303.04 judgmentsubmitting the final report. The Complainant had come to theoffice of ACB at 6.00 a.m. on 15.02.2000 and thereafter he calledtwo persons to act as panchas. He denied the suggestion that hewas not competent to carry out the investigation. 16.On this evidence certain contradictions were pointedout by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The Complainantin his cross-examination accepted that the 7/12 extracts at Sr.No. 9 to 12 were not given to the Inspector at the time of search,however, in the complaint the Complainant has stated so. Hethus denied before the Court that he had given the said 7/12extract to the ACB and except that all 7/12 extracts were alreadyin his possession since prior to the date of the trap. The sanctionorder appears to be mechanical one. No details are recorded inthe sanction order as to for what purpose the sanction isaccorded.17.Taking in to consideration the oral and documentaryevidence, this Court finds that the name of Trigunabai was 13criappeal303.04 judgmentalready taken to 7/12 in Gut No. 57 and 58 as is reflected from(Exh. 9 to 12). However, the defence could not produce anythingon record to show that the amount of arrears was Rs. 498/-. Onthe contrary, it is pointed out by the learned APP that theamount of arrears was only Rs. 5.30 ps. Thus, the defence is farfetched. So far as, the evidence of the complainant is concerned,it is corroborated by evidence of (PW-2) a shadow panch witness.No contradictions are pointed out. The material fact of giving andaccepting of the bribe is proved. The notice is issued by theTalathi/accused on 10.01.2000, is on record showing the amountof arrears to be Rs. 5.30 ps issued in the name of Trigunabai.There is also a report dated 22.01.2000 sent by the Tahsildar,Palve, District Parbhani, shows that the notice was pasted on theGrampanchyat Office towards the arrears of land revenue of Rs.5.30 ps. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the submissions ofthe learned Advocate for the appellant that there is nothing onrecord to show that the amount demanded was the amount ofland revenue. No any witness has stated that the accused askedfor the amount as land revenue. 14criappeal303.04 judgment18.It is held by the trial Court that the total arrears ofland revenue infact are Rs. 5.30 ps., as the land revenue is Rs.1.55 ps per annum. The Court has rightly considered that theaccused has not brought on record anything to show thatTrigunabai was in arrears of land revenue of amount of Rs.498/-. When the defence is taken it was for the accused tospecifically show that infact Trigunabai was in arrears of thatmuch amount.19.This Court finds substance in the argument of learnedAPP that the appellant accepted that (PW-1) and (PW-2) had beento the office of accused on 15.02.2000 and the accused hasaccepted the amount. Though the accused has taken a defence inhis 313 statement that the amount was towards the arrears ofland revenue and he was about to issue receipt by taking amountfrom complainant, however no such defence is put in hisevidence. 15criappeal303.04 judgment20.This Court on going through the evidence andsubmissions finds that the submissions of learned APP findsmerit. No illegality or perversity is pointed out in the judgment ofthe trial Court. The trial Court has rightly held the accusedguilty of the afore stated offences levelled against him. Thus, thisCourt finds that no case is made out calling for interference atthe hands of this Court. The Criminal Appeal, therefore, deservesto be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Appellant tosurrender to his bail bonds. ( KISHORE C. SANT ) JUDGE21.At the request of learned Advocate for the appellantfour weeks time is granted to surrender. ( KISHORE C. SANT ) JUDGEmahajansb/