High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2004The State of Maharashtra,Through - P.S. Kranti Chowk,Aurangabad. ….Appellant VersusPruthuvakar Vadkavatil BalarunanAge: 40 yrs., Occu.: Traffic Supervisor,Ashok Tours and Travels, HotelAurangabad 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 dated05-04-2004 passed by learned Special Judge, Aurangabad, in SpecialCase No.26 of 1998 acquitting accused from charges under Sections7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.FACTS OF CASE IN BRIEF2.Present respondent was chargesheeted by Anti Corruption {2} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004Bureau (ACB), Aurangabad on the premise that complainant’s fatherRamchabilasing submitted a tender for package tour floated byIndian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC). His tender wasaccepted and tour was conducted from 10-10-1997 to 30-10-1997and again on 12-10-1997 to 31-10-1997. Towards said tour, onaccount of uses of two coaches, cheques for the tour amount werereleased towards 75% amount. Son of Ramchabiilasing namelyVirendrasing Thakur, who was a Driver in ACB Aurangabad,approached accused, who was a Traffic Supervisor, with a request torelease the cheques. It is the case of prosecution that accuseddemanded bribe of Rs.4,000/- to do the needful. Virendrasinglodged complaint (exh.16) with ACB, Aurangabad on the strength ofwhich ACB authorities planned and arranged trap, issued necessaryinstructions to complainant and shadow pancha and raiding partyaccompanied both of them and kept themselves waiting in lay forreceipt of signal from complainant regarding acceptance of bribe andthereafter, on receiving signal, they apprehended accused. ACB Officer lodged report exh.33 for above charge and aftercompleting investigation, and after obtaining sanction, accused wastried by learned Special Court, who after conducting trial and onappreciating evidence, held that prosecution failed to make out a {3} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004case as evidence on behalf of prosecution was not found to be worthyof credence and hence, present accused came to be acquitted. Feeling aggrieved by the same, State has preferred instantappeal. RIVAL CONTENTIONSOn behalf of appellant State :3. Learned APP appearing on behalf of appellant would point outthat there is no dispute about service of accused. That, there isfurther no dispute that father of complainant was to receive chequefor the tours conducted by him. It is pointed out that whencomplainant himself approached seeking issuance of cheque bytendering bill, it is alleged that, demand of Rs.4,000/- was raised.Complainant himself has lodged report about bribe being demandedand his complaint was duly noted. It is further pointed out that inpresence of Superintendent of Police, there was telephonicconversation. Thus, there was demand of bribe.4.Learned APP further pointed out that in presence of shadowpancha, who is examined as PW2, there was again demand as well asacceptance. That, ACB authorities on conducting raid, noticed traces {4} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004of anthracene powder. Thus, according to learned APP, there is bothdemand as well as acceptance. 5.It is pointed out that, evidence of PW1 complainant iscompletely supported by PW2 shadow pancha and therefore, fullproof case was made out, however, learned trial Judge failed toconsider and appreciate the same and disbelieved prosecutionversion. According to learned APP, there is improper appreciation ofevidence. Hence, learned APP seeks indulgence of this Court byallowing the appeal.On behalf of respondent - accused :6. Countering the above submissions, learned counsel forrespondent pointed out that prosecution has miserably failed to makeout the case. He pointed out that, in fact father of the complainant,who had filled tender and allegedly succeeded in the same, has notbeen examined. He pointed out that, defence taken in trial Court isthat complainant’s father had borrowed Rs.5,000/- as hand-loanfrom accused and said amount was returned. That, there wasconversation in this regard to which PW2 shadow pancha was aparty. He pointed out that in cross-examination, PW2 shadow {5} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004pancha has candidly admitted to that extent. Learned defencecounsel pointed out that accused has also examined defence witness,who was working in the Accounts Department. Learned counselpointed out that, it is clearly emerging from the evidence that PW2shadow pancha was not in the company of complainant and accusedat the time of alleged incident. Therefore, there is no corroborationto 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 COURT7.In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of inall three witnesses. Sum and substance of their evidence is as under :PW1 Virendrasing Ramchabilasingh Thakur testified at exh.15that he worked as Driver in ACB at Nagpur. He deposed abouttenders filled by his father with ITDC Aurangabad, both beingaccepted and his father receiving cheque towards 75% amount andhe deposed that he came to Aurangabad at the instance of his fatherand had approached accused and accused allegedly asked him to payamount for the work to be done. He claims to have initially paidaccused Rs.1,000/- but further demand of Rs.3,000/- was raised, {6} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004however, he paid Rs.2,000/- and agreed to pay Rs.1,000/- more atthe time of final bill and even issued cheque towards remainingRs.1,000/-. He further deposed about telephonic contact being donewith accused. There was said to be demand of 5% of the bill amount,however, complainant offered to pay bribe @ 3% of the bill amountand so he lodged report exh.16. In his further evidence, he hasnarrated the events which took place in the ACB office and necessaryinstructions being given to him and shadow pancha and aboutinstructions to go together to the office of accused and handing overtainted currency on demand. In paragraph 6 of the examination-in-chief he narrated eventstook place in the office i.e. ITDC office at Aurangabad and testifiedthat he and shadow pancha Mahd. Faiyyaz accompanied accused tothe Accounts Office. He deposed that while standing in varanda,accused asked him to give Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, he held taintedcurrency before him, which was accepted by accused and necessarysignal was relayed. In cross-examination, he has admitted that, he does not knowwhen his father had submitted quotation. He admitted that his finalbill was after deduction of 5% service tax, but at the time ofquotation, service tax was not in force. He answered that, under his {7} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004own signature, he did not tender any application. He answered that,when he came to Aurangabad, while on leave, he had cheques signedby his father, but he admitted about not stating about it in the report.He admitted about not having talks with his father about demand ofaccused for 5% extra charge. He answered that, telephonicconversation between him and accused was recorded in the cassette.However, he submitted that when he met Investigating OFficer, hedid not disclose about talks between him and accused to be recordedin cassette. He admitted that there was no direct talk between himand accused before making report. He answered that there was noverification done prior to trap. In para 16 he answered that accusedhad place to sit in the lobby near the recaption whereas AccountsSection was 150 meters away from the reception. He admitted thatthere were no talks about money at the counter of accused andfurther admitted that there were no talks about money till they wentto old wing and also admitted about not telling accused about moneybeing brought. 8.PW2 Mohd. Fayyas Mohd. Umar shadow pancha after deposingbeing summoned from ACB to act as pancha, being introduced tocomplainant, going through his written complaint, deposed about {8} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004procedure of application of anthracene powder done by ACB to thecurrency and drawing panchanama exh.25. Regarding the events atthe office of accused, he deposed that he and complainant walked tothe hotel, complainant took him to the left side of the office, where aperson was sitting and showed that person papers and said persontold that file was lying in the Accounts Section and they accordinglywent there. In examination-in-chief itself he stated that when threeof them went towards Accounts Section, while standing in thecorridor, complainant told accused that he had brought money, onwhich said person told him to give saying that henceforth, workwould not be done if there is no clarity in the approach and thencomplainant handed over tainted currency to that person, who put itin his pocket and thereafter they went to Accounts Section, afterwhich, complainant went to transmit signal from the corridor whilehe and accused went in the Accounts Section and raiding partyapproached accused. While under cross-examination, in paragraph 7, he admittedthat there were no talks between complainant and accused till theyreach corridor of the old building. He further stated that ACB Officerasked accused about the money and accused told that he hadreceived his money which Thakur had borrowed. {9} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004PW3 is the Investigating Officer. ANALYSIS 9.On analyzing above evidence, here it is clearly emerging moreparticularly from the answers given in the cross-examination by PW1complainant himself as well as PW2 shadow pancha that there is nodemand at the first instance from accused. Complainant appears tohave on his own accord declared about he carrying money. Evenindependent witness PW2 shadow pancha has stated that he was notparty to the conversation between accused and complainant.Therefore, there is no corroboration to the evidence of complainanton the point of demand. Apparently, PW2 shadow pancha was notpresent as it has come in his evidence that he was standing incorridor and both complainant as well as PW2 shadow pancha admitabout there to be no conversation between complainant and accusedregarding bribe amount. With such evidence, very aspect of demandcomes under shadow of doubt. 10.Learned counsel for respondent accused submitted that fatherof complainant, who had filled tenders and was to receive bills, hasnot been examined. It is also further surprising and difficult to
Legal Reasoning
{10} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004comprehend how complainant has tendered cheque under thesignature of his father during initial conversation. Though it is a caseof complainant that in presence of Superintendent, Central Bureau ofInvestigation, Nagpur, there was telephonic conversation regardingdemand, such electronic evidence of conversation is not before theCourt.11.Learned counsel for respondent pointed out that amountaccepted by accused was the money, which was borrowed by fatherof complainant, and was so duly accepted. He invited attention ofthis Court to the cross-examination of PW2 shadow pancha, whocandidly admits that the amount handed over during conversationrevealed to be return of hand loan. Very Investigating Officer incross-examination also has admitted about immediate statementgiven by accused on apprehension that the amount received wasrepayment of borrowed money. Statement of accused, afterimmediate arrest, is also part of record. Thus, there is anotherreason for doubting the demand of illegal gratification. 12.Perused the judgment under challenge. Learned trial Judgeapparently appreciated evidence of PW1 complainant, PW2 shadow {11} CRI APPEAL 512 OF 2004pancha and that of PW3 Investigating Officer and has observed thatcase of prosecution is not worthy of credence. Sound reasons areassigned for above findings. No infirmity or perversity is brought tothe notice of this Court. Consequently, no case on merits being madeout for interference, appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, Ipass following order :ORDER Criminal Appeal stands dismissed ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT