[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1767 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Chandrashekhar Pancharakshayya Bidrimath ..Respondent .... Mr.Rajesh More APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 12, 2008 DATE : JUNE 12, 2008 DATE : JUNE 12, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ratnagiri in Special Case No.11 of 2001. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offences under Sections 7(1)(d) and 13(1)(d)(ii) r.w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The prosecution case is that the wire between two poles of the complainant was cut, hence, the electric supply was disconnected and therefore, the [-2-] complainant went to the office of MSEB for replacement of wire, where the accused was working as a Sub-Engineer. The accused told the complainant that complainant had to deposit Rs.300/- for replacing the wire. As the complainant had only Rs.100 with him at that time, he gave the same to the accused. Accused told the complainant that he should pay remaining amount of RS.200/- on Tuesday in the office and thereafter he will replace the wire and restore the electric supply. On Tuesday, the complainant was unable to arrange the additional amount of Rs.200/-, hence, he went to the police patil and requested him to intervene. According to the complainant, police patil went to the accused. Police patil requested the accused that as the complainant was poor, he should not insist on the amount. However, the accused told that complainant should arrange for money and then he will supply the wire immediately on the next day. Due to this, complainant filed complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. A trap came to be arranged. Complainant was instructed to go to the office of the accused along with panch witness and request the accused to replace the wire and pay the amount to the accused only on demand [-3-] being made. Accordingly, complainant and panch went to the office of the accused. Complainant enquired with the accused about his electric supply on which accused demanded an amount of Rs.200/-, then the complainant took out the currency notes from the left side of his shirt and it was held before the accused. The accused accepted that amount, counted it and kept it in the diary and that diary was kept in the drawer of the table. Thereafter, the complainant went outside the office and gave predetermined signal to the other panch and staff of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Ratnagiri. They rushed inside the office. The hands and clothes of the accused were seen under ultraviolet lamp on which the bluish shining light was found on the fingers of both the hands of the accused. The amount kept in a diary was taken by panch witness Patil and the notes were seen under ultraviolet lamp whereupon a bluish shining light was found on these notes. The numbers of the currency notes were mentioned in the trap panchnama. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which [-4-] has been produced by the learned APP. 4. The defence of the accused is that the distance between the pole and the meter of the complainant was 37 mts. and normally 30 mts. service wire is provided. As extra wire was required, it was necessary for the complainant to deposit the cost of extra wire at Rs.25/- per meter which comes to Rs.175/-. The case of the accused is that he was entitled to recover cost of the excess wire of 7 mts. from the complainant and he had demanded money for the additional wire. Hence the amount of Rs.200/- was not given as bribe but as cost of additional wire. 5. In the present case, no point has been raised regarding sanction, therefore, the only question which remains is whether the amount accepted by the accused was by way of bribe or it was the amount recoverable from the complainant being charges of the excess service wire. 6. It is pertinent to note that the accused had not demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant but he had only made query whether the complainant has [-5-] brought the cash. The learned APP submitted that the case of the accused is that Rs.175/- was to be paid to the accused towards the excess wire in which case Rs.25/- had to be returned by the accused to the complainant however it was not done, which shows Rs.200/- was demanded and accepted as bribe. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that on receiving the amount of Rs.200/- the accused had kept it in a diary and he immediately started processing the papers. During the course of processing the papers, the accused went out of the office for two minutes and at that time, the panch witness and police rushed inside the office of the accused and found the money in the diary. This shows there was no opportunity to the accused to complete the processing of papers and return the money. 7. The case of the accused is that Rs.175/- was to be deposited towards excess wire. From the evidence of witness Sanjay, it is seen that the accused’s quotation in respect of excess wire was sent in the name of the complainant to the Higher Officer in MSEB. The signature of the accused was found on the quotation. Exhibit 97 which is a copy [-6-] of the departmental Circular i.e. Commercial No.463 dated 1st June, 1990, mentions the various charges in connection with the electric supply and at Sr.No.1 charges for single phase supply for load upto 0.5 kv. has been mentioned as Rs.300 fixed charges, and Rs.25/- per meter variable charges for over head line for more than 30 meters (Service Line charges). From the evidence of Mr.Kambale a local Lineman it appears that the distance between pole to meter of the complainant was 37 meters. Thus the service wire required was 7 metres more than 30 meters. If the cost of Rs.25/- per meter for additional wire of 7 mts. is calculated. The amount of seven meters additional service wire multiplied by Rs.25/- comes to Rs.175/- and that much amount, the accused was entitled to recover from the complainant. 8. I have already observed that the accused had not made the demand for Rs.200/- but he had only asked the complainant whether he had brought the money. Looking to Exh.77 the Departmental Circular and the other evidence on record, it does appear that the amount was demanded by the accused towards excess wire. It is also pertinent to note the [-7-] further defence of the accused is that as electric bills were not paid by the villagers of the complainant, hence, accused had taken action to recover the electric bills from villagers from the village and for that purpose, he had disconnected the electric supply of the villagers. Due to this action of the accused, the villagers were annoyed with the accused, so much so, even the political leader of a particular party had arranged a procession against the accused, which is borne out from the record. The evidence of PW 5 Kamble shows that the said political leader had accompanied the complainant when the complainant filed the complaint and he was present in the Court when the evidence of the complainant was recorded. In such case, the defence of the accused that he was falsely implicated as he had cut the electric supply of the villagers due to non-payment of the bills, appears to be probable. 9. Looking to the entire evidence on record, the learned Special Judge had acquitted the Respondent-accused. On considering the evidence, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible [-8-] view. No interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]