High Court · 2024

Legal Reasoning

-1- Cri.Appeal.643.2004IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 643 OF 2004The State of Maharashtra … Appellant [Orig. Complainant]VersusGovind s/o. Satvaji Narwane, Age : 41 years, Occu. : Service, R/o. T.B. Centre, Gandhi Chaman,Old Jalna, Dist. Jalna.… Respondent [orig. Accused]…Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Appellant – State.Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondent... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON : 05 MARCH 2024PRONOUNCED ON : 08 MARCH 2024JUDGMENT :1.State is aggrieved by the judgment and order ofacquittal dated 22.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge,Jalna in Special Case No. 4 of 2002, which was tried for offencepunishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2.Present respondent was charge-sheeted on accusationthat, he demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- for performing cesareanoperation of daughter of complainant, who was admitted in the -2- Cri.Appeal.643.2004hospital on 31.08.2001. Out of the bribe amount, demand ofRs.600/- was met, however as complainant was not interested inpaying remaining amount, he had approached Anti CorruptionBureau (ACB) authorities and lodged complaint and afterregistration of the same, PW4 PI Satish Deshmukh carried outinvestigation and charge-sheeted accused. On facing trial,prosecution adduced evidence of 4 witnesses. Documentaryevidence was also relied. However, after appreciating the same,learned trial Judge acquitted the accused by judgment and orderdated 22.07.2004, holding that, prosecution failed to establish andprove the charges levelled against the accused. It is the above judgment and order of acquittal, which isnow taken exception to by the State by filing instant appeal beforethis Court.SUBMISSIONS On behalf of Appellant State :-3.According to learned APP, accused was working asMedical Officer in rural hospital. That, daughter of complainantwas admitted for delivery, however, accused informed complainantthat his daughter would be required to undergo cesarean operationand for that he would have to expend. He pointed out that, therewas demand of Rs.1,000/-. That, complainant complied with part -3- Cri.Appeal.643.2004demand by paying Rs.600/-, accused persisted and consistentlydemanded remaining amount of Rs.400/-. Therefore complaint waslodged with ACB and trap was planned and laid, and accused wasapprehended. His fingers were found to be carrying anthracenepowder. Panch witness also supported the prosecution version.Unfortunately, complainant did not support the prosecution, butaccording to learned APP, considering the testimony ofInvestigating Officer and Sanctioning Authority, case ought to havebeen proved, but learned trial Court failed to consider andappreciate the same and has unfortunately acquitted the accusedand hence he seeks to set aside the judgment by allowing theappeal. On behalf of Respondent :-4.In answer to above, learned counsel for respondentaccused pointed out that, at the first count, here, prosecution hasmiserably failed to establish that there was any demand at all. Hepointed out that, complainant, who had set law into motion himselfhas not supported the prosecution. Learned counsel for respondentaccused took this court through the evidence of PW2 Vasant, hiscross, evidence of sanctioning authority and would submit that,apart from inconsistent version from the mouth of PW2 Vasantpanch, even sanction is invalid as very sanctioning authority has -4- Cri.Appeal.643.2004candidly admitted that, he was not authorized to accord sanction.Therefore, prosecution case got knocked at the bottom itself.Therefore, learned trial court finding complainant not supportingsanction to be invalid, was left with no alternative, but to acquit theaccused and that has been precisely done and hence prays todismiss the appeal for want of merits.EVIDENCE ON RECORD5.PW1 Ankush, complainant is examined at Exh.17. Histestimony is about his daughter admitted for delivery and heapproaching respondent doctor. According to him, doctor told that,he would require to spend some amount for cesarean andthereupon complainant claims that he promised to pay amountafter returning from village. According to him, doctor told him topay Rs.1,000/-. That time, he paid Rs.600/- and assured to payremaining amount later on and then he approached ACB andlodged complaint at Exh.18. While deposing in para 3 of his chief,he stated that, doctor asked him, whether he brought the amountand on answering affirmatively, he took out the amount and paid tohim. But, thereafter complainant resiled and did not support theprosecution as he started testifying that he cannot state who was aperson accompanying him at the time of alleged payment madeand whether the person was private person or police personnel. -5- Cri.Appeal.643.2004However, surprisingly he is virtually admitting all suggestionsgiven by learned APP. Again while in cross, which commences from paragraph7 and more particularly in paragraph 8 he has admitted that,doctor told him that patient was in need of blood and it wasrequired to be brought from outside and he therefore asked doctorabout the price of the blood bottle and doctor was told about it to beRs.400/- and thereafter doctor was asked by him to bring the bloodbottle. He further admitted that, he had paid amount of Rs.600/-while he was in the ward. He admitted that, doctor had refused toaccept the amount as he was examining patients. Then he furtheranswered that, when he offered amount, doctor pushed his handaway and refused to accept it and at that time accidentally hishand got touched to the currency. He admitted that, he did notmake any signal to the raiding party. He also further admittedthat, it is a police to ask accused to lift the currency lying on thefloor and accused collected the notes and handed to the police. Inparagraph 12 he admitted that, he was the under impression that,proper care was not taken of his daughter in the hospital andtherefore he had lodged complaint. He further categoricallyadmitted that, there was neither any demand nor accepted thesame. Resultantly, very complainant, who had set law into motion -6- Cri.Appeal.643.2004has not supported the prosecution.6.PW2 is examined at Exh.20, deposed about he beingcalled to ACB office, apprised about introduced to complainant andapprised about the purpose of visits and then he claims that heaccompanied complainant to the hospital. Even this witness inparagraph 2 deposed that, doctor told him that blood wasnecessary for the patient. Doctor also told that, the blood bankopens at 4:00 p.m. and while they were proceeding, complainanttold accused that he had brought the money and thereaftercomplainant took out the amount and paid him. He further deposedthat doctor threw the notes on the floor and thereafter constableasked accused to pick it up and that time he lifted the notes. While under cross, panch also answered that he was notknowing about the accused. He admitted that he did not hear thetalk between accused and the complainant. Rest are all denial.7.Therefore even PW2 Vasant, whose evidence isdiscussed above, has admitted that, there were talks of arrangingblood and amount was paid, but doctor refused. This witness hascategorically stated that, he is unaware of the nature of talkbetween complainant and accused. -7- Cri.Appeal.643.20048.Learned counsel for respondent accused pointed outthat, here, not only complainant has not supported, but evensanction itself is invalid. In the light of above ground, evidence ofPW3 Prakash Pradhan is visited, which is at Exh.24. This witnessclaimed himself to be authorized by Government to prosecuteMedical Officer and thereafter on receipt of proposal, he grantedsanction. But, while cross in para 4 he has admitted that, he wasnot authorized to accord the sanction or to prosecute the accusedand that there was no power to sign the letter as delegated to him.Therefore, here, even sanction so obtained is not patently valid. 9.Resultantly, taking above material into account, here,prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges.Therefore, learned trial court has correctly appreciated theavailable evidence and has refused to accept the case ofprosecution as proved. With such quality of evidence, the onlyconclusion is acquittal and it is only possible view that couldemerge. No case made out on merits in appeal. Hence, I proceed topass the following order :-ORDERThe criminal appeal stands dismissed. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)Tandale