[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2005 1. Pramod Krishna Deokar ] Age 39 years Occ: Service ] R/o B/108, Unique Bazaar, ] Pen-Khopoli Road, Pen, ] Dist.Raigad ] 2. Mohan Vitthal Ghorpade ] Age 35 years, Occ: Service ] R/o S.No.34/12, Maratha Mitra ] Mandal Lane, Dhankawadi, ] Pune-43 ]..Appellants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] (At the instance of Anti-Corruption ] Bureau, Pune.) ]..Respondent .... Mr.Ujwal Agandsurve Advocate and Mr.J.S.Suryawanshi Advocate for Appellants Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE OF RESERVING: 4.7.2008 DATE OF RESERVING: 4.7.2008 DATE OF RESERVING: 4.7.2008 DATE OF PRONOUNCING: 7.8.2008 DATE OF PRONOUNCING: 7.8.2008 DATE OF PRONOUNCING: 7.8.2008 IN CHAMBER AT 2.45 P.M. IN CHAMBER AT 2.45 P.M. IN CHAMBER AT 2.45 P.M. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Through this appeal, the appellant-original accused nos.1 and 2 have challenged the judgment and order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Pune in Special Case No. 33 of 2001. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge convicted the original accused no.1 [-2-] for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to RI for one year and fine of Rs.1500/- on both the counts i/d RI for three months. The learned Judge directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned Judge convicted the accused no.2 for the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/- i/d RI for three months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: . Complainant PW 1 Barate is a builder by profession. It is the case of the complainant that on 29.6.2000 he had purchased land survey no.3 situated at Dhanakwadi from one Dilipsingh Rajebhosale by executing a Development Agreement. The Development Agreement and power of attorney were executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar, Haveli on 29.6.2000. At the time of registration, accused no.1 who was working as Sub-Registrar told the complainant to pay stamp duty of Rs.3500/-. Accordingly, on 6.7.2000 [-3-] complainant deposited the stamp duty of Rs.3500/- and obtained the receipt. He then demanded the document from accused no.1. That time, accused no.1 told him to again pay stamp duty of Rs.6000/-. Complainant informed accused that he had already paid stamp duty of Rs.3500/- and it was not necessary for him to again pay the stamp duty of Rs.6000/-. At that time, the accused no.1 told the complainant that if he did not pay stamp duty of Rs.6000/- then he would be required to pay Rs.5000/- to him. The complainant told him that he cannot pay that much amount, hence, accused no.1 told complainant that he should pay Rs.3500/- thereafter he will hand over the document to complainant. The complainant told him that he would bring Rs.3500/- on the next date. On 7.7.2000 the complainant went to the office of A.C.B. and lodged complaint. Thereafter raid came to be arranged. At about 2.30 p.m. they reached the office of the accused. Accused no.1 was present in the office. The complainant demanded the agreement from accused no.1. Accused took out the document and he called accused no.2 inside the cabin and asked him to verify the document. Accused no.2 verified the document and he said it [-4-] is okay and he put the document on the table of accused no.1. At that time, accused no.1 demanded money from the complainant. Complainant handed over amount of Rs.3500/- to accused no.1. The accused took the notes and counted them and then he told the complainant to take away the document. On signal being given, raiding party rushed inside and the accused persons came to be apprehended. 3. Charge came to be framed against the accused no.1 under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r.w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charge came to be framed against accused no.2 under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that of total denial and false implication. The learned Sessions Judge after going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned advocate for the appellants and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order and [-5-] the evidence led before the trial Court. 5. The prosecution case is mainly founded on the evidence of complainant P.W.1 Ravindra Barate and the panch witness P.W.2 Vankar. As far as the events on 7.7.2000 i.e. date of the trap is concerned, the complainant has stated that he went inside the office of the accused no.1 and demanded the development Agreement. Appellant no.1 took out one document from a cover and he asked appellant no.2 to verify the document. Appellant no.2 went outside and came back saying that the document is okay and he put the document on the table. Then appellant no.1 stated that he had done his work and hence, the complainant should do his work. The complainant then handed over Rs.3500/- to him. The appellant no.1 took the notes in his hands and counted it. Immediately thereafter the complainant gave a signal and the members of the raiding party rushed inside the cabin. The version of panch witness is entirely different. P.W.2 Vankar has stated that he went inside the office of the appellant no.1. Appellant no.1 took out one document from a cover and he asked the appellant no.2 to verify the document. Appellant no.2 went [-6-] outside and came back saying that the document is okay and he put the document on the table. Then appellant no.1 stated that he had done his work and hence, the complainant should do his work. The complainant then handed over Rs.3500/- to him. The panch witness stated that thereafter the complainant took the document from appellant no.1 and handed it over to him. At that time, the appellant no.1 again called complainant inside the office and handed over Rs.500/- to him from the money given by the complainant to give appellant no.2. Appellant no.2 then put that amount in his pocket and went outside. Thereafter, the members of the raiding party came inside. The panch witness then further states that appellant no.2 handed over Rs.500/- to one other person for getting change. However, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not stated that after handing over Rs.3500/- he went outside the office of appellant no.1. The complainant has also not stated that thereafter appellant no.1 called him back and out of amount of Rs.3500/-, amount of Rs.500/- was given to appellant no.2 by appellant no.1. The complainant also does not state that appellant no.2 gave the said note of Rs.500/- to [-7-] one other person. According to the complainant, as soon as he handed over the money to appellant no.1, the complainant gave signal to the raiding party and raiding party rushed inside. Thus, it is seen that there is great discrepancy between the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness in relation to the events when raid took place. 6. The panch witness has stated that when the raiding party came into the office of appellant no.1, they found the amount of Rs.3000/- kept on the table. The case of the complainant is that he handed over the amount to appellant no.1 who counted the same and the complainant immediately gave a signal to the raiding party and the raiding party rushed inside. Though the complainant was standing in front of appellant no.1, he does not say that at any point of time, appellant no.1 kept the amount on the table. If at all bribe was actually given by the complainant to appellant no.1, after taking it in his hand, the appellant would have kept the money in his pocket or in the drawer and the appellant no.1 would not have kept the amount openly on the table. [-8-] 7. The case of the complainant is that demand was made by appellant no.1 on 6.7.2000 and appellant no.1 did the work on 7.7.2000 and took the money on that date. The complainant has admitted that after the document is registered and handed over to the party, signature of the party is obtained on the register by way of acknowledgement of receipt of the document. The complainant admits that when the document was delivered to him, at that time, he had signed the register. Exhibits 16 and 17 are two receipts dated 6.7.2000. These receipts show that the documents in question were handed over on 6.7.2000 itself and documents were handed over to one Rajebhosale. In fact, the documents were in the name of Rajebhosale. When the document was between Rajebhosale and one other party, there was no question of the complainant asking for the document from the accused. As per the procedure, at the time of delivery of the document, the person who executes the document, would get the copies of it on registration and no other party would be handed over the said document. The complainant has also admitted that receipt is given to the person in whose favour the document is registered. When the complainant was not one of the parties to the [-9-] document, there was no question of the complainant, asking for such document. Even if the complainant asked for such a document there was no question of handing over such document to the complainant. Moreover, the record shows that documents were handed over on 6.7.2000 itself, in which case, there was no question of making demand on 6.7.2000 and handing over documents on 7.7.2000 and accepting bribe on 7.7.2000. 8. Looking to the above facts, the defence of the accused seems to be probable that there was another development agreement in which, the complainant was the party. In the said matter, the appellant no.1 had raised objection regarding Income-tax Clearance due to which the document remained pending. As the document remained pending, the further work was hampered. On account of this, the complainant was enraged, hence, he has falsely implicated the appellants in this matter. It is seen that the complainant is in the habit of filing false complaints against the Government officials. Prior to this complaint also, the complainant had filed complaints against Government officials. However, the government officials came to be acquitted in [-10-] the said cases. The complainant himself has criminal antecedents. 9. As per procedure the person who collects the document has to sign in the register. There is no document or receipt in the name of the complainant. No receipt is produced by the complainant. There is no entry in the name of the complainant in the register. The Investigating Officer has categorically admitted that from the date of filing report, till the completion of investigation, no receipt was produced by the complainant. Moreover, the case of the complainant is that after he received the documents, he had signed the register. It is pertinent to note that documents were not in the name of the complainant but they were in the name of one Bhosale Raje. In such case, it does not appear probable that the appellant no.1 would demand any amount in respect of this document from the complainant. I may also mention here that the averment of the complainant that on 6.7.2001 he had met the accused and accused had demanded bribe from him is an improvement. The complainant has not stated so in his earlier statement. All these facts raise doubt in the mind as to whether there [-11-] was really any demand for bribe by appellant no.1. In my view, the demand is not established by the prosecution and in such case, the entire foundation of the prosecution case falls to the ground and subsequent version of acceptance of money by way of illegal gratification becomes doubtful. In the case of Pandharinath Shelke V. State of Pandharinath Shelke V. State of Pandharinath Shelke V. State of Maharashtra, 2005(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 940, Maharashtra, 2005(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 940, Maharashtra, 2005(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 940, it has been observed that "demand not established by prosecution, entire foundation of prosecution falls to ground and subsequent, version of acceptance of money towards illegal gratification becomes doubtful. Mere recovery of money from accused was not sufficient to raise any presumption against him." 10. In view of the serious discrepancies between the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness and the other evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the evidence of the complainant cannot be relied upon. In this view of the matter, the accused deserves to be acquitted. 11. In the result, both the appellants are acquitted of the offences charged. The judgment [-12-] and order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in Special Case No.33 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. The fine amount if any paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 12. Appeal allowed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]