Cri.appeal 106/2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 106/2001 The State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurangabad. ...Appellant. Versus Laxman s/o Ganpatrao Waghmare, Age : 43 years, Occu. Service, R/o Phulambri Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Respondent. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for appellant/State. Mr. Joy deep Chatterji, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 16th December, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 This appeal is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalna on 7/11/2000 in Special Case No. 8/1996 acquitting the respondent from the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2 The case of the prosecution was that the appellant while working as Jr. Accounts Officer in Panchayat Samiti, Bhokardan Dist. Jalna on 26/03/1996, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.250/- from the complainant. This was an anti-corruption bureau’s trap case. 3. The prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses out of which the most important one is the complainant prosecution witness No.1. He said that he was working as Peon, Primary Health Center, Walsangavi. He said that on 13/03/1996, his office submitted bill of Cri.appeal 106/2001 2 his claim of Rs.671/- with the office of Panchayat Samiti, Bhokardan. He said, on 15/03/1996 he went to the said office and met the respondent. He said, the respondent avoided to clear the bill saying that he should know how the bill is cleared. A couple of days prior to 26/03/1996, he went to the respondent. He said, on 26/03/1996 he again went and met the respondent and at that time he said, the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs.300/- for clearing his bill. He said, with some persuasion, the respondent reduced the demand to Rs.250/-. He said, he promised the respondent to arrange for the amount within 2 – 3 days. He said that on that day, he went to the A.C.B. office at Jalna and lodged a report. He said, thereafter the A.C.B. arranged a trap. He said, at the time of the trap, he and the shadow panch went to the office of the respondent. He said, he asked the respondent as to what had happened to his bill. He said, to this the respondent replied that the bill was passed and asked him whether he had brought the amount as per his demand. He said, he replied in affirmative. He said, the respondent then asked him to hand over the amount. He said, accordingly he handed over the amount to the respondent. He said, soon thereafter he made the signal and the raiding party arrived and arrested the respondent. The shadow panch is witness No.4. He more or less supported the prosecution case and narrated how he and the complainant went to the office of the respondent for laying a trap for him. He said, the complainant asked the respondent as to what had happened to his work. He said, to this the respondent asked the complainant whether he had brought the amount. He said, to this the complainant replied in affirmative and asked the respondent as to whether he should hand over the amount to him. He said, thereafter immediately the complainant took out the Cri.appeal 106/2001 3 tainted currency notes from his chest pocket and handed over them to the respondent. It appears that this witness in a way helped the respondent in building his defence as well as to weaken the prosecution case. He conveniently omitted to state that the respondent demanded the amount when he heard from the complainant that the complainant had brought the amount which he had demanded. He indicated that before the respondent could demand the amount, the complainant handed it over to him. In this way, he avoided to provide corroboration to the material aspect of the prosecution case about demand of the bribe amount. The learned judge of the trial Court on this count held that the prosecution case should fail. 4 This witness also helped the respondent in building his defence. The respondent took up a defence that soon after A.C.B. officers came there, he explained his position to them by saying that he had received the amount as certain dues which one Nimbhore owed to him. The shadow panch admitted in cross examination that the respondent offered this explanation to the Investigation officer soon after he came there. Fortunately, for the respondent, the prosecution even examined Nimbhore the prosecution witness No.3 in support of their case. The prosecution probably thought that the prosecution witness No.3 Nimbhore would support their case that he did not owe any amount to the respondent and that he had not sent Rs.250/- to the respondent through the complainant but it seems this witness turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that he owed an amount of Rs. 250/- to the respondent and that he had sent the amount with the complainant. With this, the entire prosecution case was set at naught. As if it was enough, the respondent also put forward his further Cri.appeal 106/2001 4 defence that before the amount of Rs.250/- could be sent to him, prosecution witness No.3 had sent him a letter promising that he would pay the amount soon etc.. But as said above, this further embellishment of the defence was really not necessary. In view of this, the prosecution case had failed. 5 The judge of the trial Court held that even the sanction was not proper but I am not inclined to agree withe this finding. The prosecution witness No.6 very clearly stated that as he was holding the charge of the Chief Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Jalna, he was entitled to remove the respondent from his office and that when the papers of the case were sent to him by A.C.B., he went through them carefully and found the case suitable for grant of sanction. This part of the deposition of this witness has remained intact though he was subjected to long cross examination. In the cross examination, the respondent’s advocate tried to suggest to him that the bill of the complainant was already passed and even the cheque was issued prior to the date of trap. This witness admitted such position but that does not mean that the witness had failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case. Even after passing of the bill and issuance of the cheque, there was ample opportunity for the respondent to demand and accept the bribe for passing and clearing of the bill of the complainant. In view of this, the appeal should fail. ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) ts k/ok Cri.appeal 106/2001 5