Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010

                                     1




                                                                         
                                                 
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                   Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2001




                                                
     Shri Suresh son of Ramaji Pandav,
     aged about 40 years,
     occupation Tax Collector,
     Nagpur Municipal Corporation,




                                
     Nagpur, resident of Bhande
     Plot No. 114, Umrer Road,
     Nagpur.        ig          Versus
                                                  ....             Appellant.
                  
     The State of Maharashtra,
     through Police Inspector,
     Kotwali Police Station
     and A.C.B., Nagpur.                          ....            Respondent.
      
   



                                 *****

     Mr. R.M. Daga, Adv., for the appellant.





     Mr. D.B. Patel, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent.
                              *****


                                 CORAM       :     A.H. JOSHI, J.

                                 Date        :      2nd July, 2010.


     ORAL JUDGMENT :


     1.      The   appellant   was       charged      for      commission          of

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:05:50 :::
2
with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/-,

in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for the

former offence, and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and

a fine of Rs.600/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for

three months for the latter offence.

2. Prosecution has examined in all eleven witnesses.

3.

Panch witness one Shri Ramesh Ambadas Linge has

not been examined.

4. PW 6 Shri Somaji Mahaguji Meshram, the

complainant, has turned hostile.

5. Entire reliance of the prosecution is on oral

testimony of PW 3 Shri Sadashiv Yeshwantrao Ingale.

6. Crux of the matter is the demand of bribe amount,

its acceptance by the accused and recovery thereof from

him.

7. In so far as the demand is concerned, PW 6

Somaji Mahaduji Meshram, the complainant, has stated as

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:05:50 :::
3
follows:-

2. On the next day, I alone went to
A.C.B. Office. Rizvi has given/put 600 Rs. in
my pocket. From Anti Corruption office, one

person, myself and staff members went to the
Corporation office, by a jeep. The person who
was accompanying with me and myself went to the
office of Pandav. I have put 600/ Rs. on his
table, and asked him for the receipt. He has

put 600/ Rs. in his pocket. He has started to
prepare the receipt, in the meantime, police
came and accosted him. Police has taken the
search of Pandav. The amount of Rs.600/- was
taken from him. Police has seized that amount.

Then we came back. No further incidence taken
place. The receipt now shown to me is of my
name. ……………….

[Quoted from page no. 114 of the Appeal paper-book.
Underlining is done to highlight the important and relevant
portion].

8. This witness was cross-examined, and even in the

cross-examination, he has reiterated what he told in

Examination-in-Chief. The relevant portion from the cross-

examination is quoted below:-

13. ………………………………..

……….It is not true that, I have given Rs.
600/- to Pandav. Pandav has counted the
currency notes by both hands, and put the fold
in his Manila pocket. It is not true that,
accused said that now, I should not worry,
there will be tax demand to the lady, soon.

             Portion mark    K  from my statement now read





             over         to        me         is        not

correct. …………….. ……………….

[Quoted from page no. 121 of the Appeal paper-book.
Underlining is done to highlight the important and relevant
portion].

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:05:50 :::
4

9. PW 3 Sadashiv Yeshwantrao Ingale, Panch witness,

states that he was not present when the demand was made by

the accused. His version in Examination-in-Chief reads as

follows:-

2. Myself and other trap party members
were waiting outside the office of the accused,

after 10 to 15 minutes Somaji has given the
signal by rubbing and handkerchief on the face.
Myself and other trap party members entered to
the office. Both hands of the Pandav were
caught. The accused before the court is the

same. Rizvi has given his identity to Pandao.
I was with Rizvi. Rizvi has introduced us with
Mr. Pandav. Pandao was frightened. Rizvi asked

him to be calm.

[Quoted from page no.46 of the Appeal paper-book.
Underlining is done to highlight the important and relevant

portion].

10. In the Cross-examination, PW 3 Sadashiv Ingale

confirms what he has stated in Examination-in-Chief as to

talk, if any, between the complainant and the accused.

Text of cross-examination of PW 3 Sadashiv Ingale reads

as follows:-

4. Cross by Shri Rizvi Adv., for accused.

Pandao has not demanded anything in my
presence to Somaji or Kalpanabai. I do not know
the talk between complainant, Linge and

accused. There were 20 to 25 clerks in the
office of accused and they were sitting
adjacent to each other. I cannot say from whose
custody Articles from Exh.37 were seized. I
cannot say whose signature is on Exh.37. I
cannot say from whom the seizure of Exh.38 was
made.

[Quoted from page no.48 of the Appeal paper-book].

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:05:50 :::
5

11. Based on this evidence, learned Adv., for the

appellant has placed reliance on following judgments in

support of his contention:-

1. Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra
[AIR 1979 SC 1191],

2. Arjun Bajirao Kale Vs. State of Mah. [2009 ALL

MR (Cri) 85], and

3. Manohar Dhondu Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra
& another [2006 (2) AIR Bom R 294].

12. These judgments are relied upon to urge that:-

[1] Bare recovery of amount of bribe from the
accused is not sufficient, and demand

ought to be proved.

[2] In the event of suspicion, the accused is
liable to be given benefit of doubt.

13. Probably another witness of Panchanama Mr. Ramesh

Ambadas Linge could have been examined to prove what

prosecution desired, however, prosecution has failed to

examine him.

14. It is, thus, a clear case where demand was not

proved by the complainant, as he turned hostile, and

prosecution witnesses, who were examined, have also failed

to prove the demand as well the acceptance of bribe money.

15. Thus, on what is shown by the prosecution, demand

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:05:50 :::
6
of amount of bribe by the accused is not proved. In the

result, recovery of amount of bribe from the accused

becomes insignificant.

16. Moreover, it has come on record that complainant

had demanded receipt of money paid and the accused had

started writing and completed the writing of Tax Receipt

towards amount received by him.

17.

Collective effect of the evidence is that accused

is not guilty.

18. Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence is

liable to be set aside. Appellant is acquitted.

19. His Bail Bonds stand cancelled.

JUDGE

-0-0-0-0-

|hedau|

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:05:50 :::