:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 200 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 200 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra (Through Anti Corruption Bureau, Nashik) ...Appellant. v. Bhimsen Gangaram Jugat Age 51 yrs., Labour Officer, Class II, Chief Engineering Mechanical Irrigation Dept., Nashik, Dist. Nashik ...Respondent. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for the Appellant/State. Mr.V.N.Tayade , adv. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. DATE: 20th February, 2009. DATE: 20th February, 2009. DATE: 20th February, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This is the State’s appeal challenging the impugned judgement and order dated 27th December, 2000 recording the respondent’s acquittal of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Prosecution case in brief was as under: . In the year 1987, the respondent was working as a labour officer Class II at Nashik. The complainant Wagh was the manager of Rekha Photo Studio standing in the name of his mother. There were employees working in the said studio and the complainant had maintained their record. On 8th September, 1987 when the complainant was :2: out of station, the respondent visited the studio and he pointed out some defects in the record and kept such note in the studio. On 9th September, 1987 the complainant returned and he perused the inspection note. Thereafter complainant replied that note by sending reply by registered post. On 29.9.1987 the respondent came in the studio and told the complainant giving photo-roll that he was ready to set right the record without any prosecution but for that the complainant should pay him Rs.1,000/-. On 5.10.1987 at about 8.30 p.m. the respondent again came in the studio and demanded Rs.1000/- from the complainant to which he showed his inability. So the amount was reduced to Rs.500/- and then to Rs.200/- saying that the remaining Rs.300/- would be adjusted towards the development charges. Respondent instructed the complainant that he would visit the studio on 6.10.1987 in the evening and at that time he should keep ready Rs.200/- and developed roll. The complainant being annoyed of this demand went to the A.C.B. office on 6.10.1987 at 11.00 a.m. Dy.S.P. Kadave from A.C.B. office collected two panchas namely Sudhir Darade and Anil Deshmukh and on their arrival, he introduced them to the complainant as well as gave his complaint to them for reading. The complainant produced the notes of Rs.200/- i.e. 3 notes of Rs.50/-, 2 notes of Rs.20/- and 1 note of Rs.10/-. Demonstration of U.V.Lamp and Anthracene powder was shown to the complainant and panchas and by applying :3: anthracene powder to the notes they were kept in the watch pocket of the complainant’s pant with instruction to pay that amount on demand to the respondent and to give signal by folding right sleeve by means of left hand. On 6th October, 1987, the respondent did not come but sent the message that due to ailment he was unable to come and he would come on the next day. Thereafter raiding party, complainant and the panchas returned to the A.C.B. Office. Complainant’s pant was taken out and it was kept in the cupboard by preparing panchanama. On the next day i.e. on 7.10.1987, complainant and panchas again arrived in the A.C.B. office at 11.00 a.m. The pant kept in the cupboard was verified and it was given to the complainant for wearing. Then the instructions were repeated and the pancha Darade and the complainant went to the studio and started waiting for the respondent. The raiding party waited outside keeping watch on the activities. At about 7.30 p.m. the respondent came in the studio with a brief case. He called for record from the complainant, tore the pages and corrected it by putting his signature and obtaining that of the complainant. He collected developed photos from the complainant and kept them in the brief case. He demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant and he paid the tainted amount while the respondent accepted it and kept in the left side chest pocket of his shirt. Complainant went outside and gave signal thereby raiding party arrived in the studio and they caught the :4: respondent. Complainant was asked to wait outside. The person of the respondent was examined in ultraviolet light and shining was found on the fingers of his right hand as well as portion of his chest pocket. The tainted amount was taken out by Panch Deshmukh and on verification it was found to be the same amount mentioned in the pre-trap panchanama. Said amount was also seen in ultraviolet light and shining was found on it. It was seized and sealed in the envelope by Dy.S.P.Kadave. The shirt of the respondent was also seized and sealed in another envelope. The respondent produced his brief case and contents were seized. The other record from the complainant was also seized. Then the complainant was called inside and on his examination in ultraviolet light, shining was found on the fingers of his right hand as well as watch pocket of his pant. Dy.S.P.Kadave thereafter lodged complaint against the respondent in Sarkarwada Police Station. Thereafter, investigation was commenced. Statements of the complainant and the panchas were recorded. Post trap panchanama was also prepared. Sanction was obtained from the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Labour and Employment on 9.11.90. Thereafter Dy.S.P.Kadave filed charge-sheet against the respondent. As stated above, the respondent was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charge was read over and explained to the respondent in :5: vernacular to which he pleaded not guilty. Defence of the respondent was of total denial. He contended that a false trap was arranged against him because the complainant was annoyed because of the inspection note prepared by him. He contended that he had given Rs.300/- to the complainant for purchasing camera for him but the complainant did not purchase it. So he demanded back the camera or the amount but he was annoyed and so he filed false case and arranged false trap. 3. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the respondent examined four witnesses, P.W.1 Panch Darade at Exhibit 16, Sanctioning authority P.W.2 Baroyi at Exhibit 23, Complainant P.W.3 Dattaji Wagh at Exhibit 30 and raiding officer P.W.4 Dy.S.P. Kadave at Exhibit 35. 4. Mr.Shitole learned APP appearing for the State submitted that respondent admitted pre-trap panchanama (Exhibit 12), Panchanama of withdrawal of trap (Exhibit 13) and post trap panchanama (Exhibit 15). He further submitted that the evidence of the complainant P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 panch witness is sufficient to prove the prosecution case that the respondent demanded and accepted gratification for setting the record of photo studio right. 5. Mr.Tayade the learned counsel for the respondent :6: on the contrary supported the impugned judgment and order. He submitted that the learned Special Judge rightly recorded the findings that in the present case demand and acceptance of gratification by the respondent is not proved. He further submitted that the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court for recording acquittal can not be faulted. He relied upon the Apex Court decision in Kunju Muhammed alias Khumani and Kunju Muhammed alias Khumani and Kunju Muhammed alias Khumani and Another v. State of Kerala (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases Another v. State of Kerala (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases Another v. State of Kerala (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 193, State (Anti-Corruption Branch), Govt. of NCT of 193, State (Anti-Corruption Branch), Govt. of NCT of 193, State (Anti-Corruption Branch), Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another v. Dr.R.C.Anand and Another (2004) 4 Delhi and Another v. Dr.R.C.Anand and Another (2004) 4 Delhi and Another v. Dr.R.C.Anand and Another (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 615 and in Punjabrao v. State of Supreme Court Cases 615 and in Punjabrao v. State of Supreme Court Cases 615 and in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1130 Maharashtra 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1130 Maharashtra 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1130 and submitted that unless the reasons recorded for acquittal are shown to be perverse, the Court should not interfere in an appeal against acquittal. 6. With the help of Mr.Shitole and Mr.Tayade, I have gone through the depositions of the witnesses and relevant documents as well as impugned judgment. The respondent has admitted pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 12 as well as panchanama of withdrawal of trap at Exhibit 13 and post trap panchanama at Exhibit 15. However, he has taken the defence that he had given an amount of Rs.300/- to the complainant for purchasing camera and an amount of Rs.200/- which he received on 7.10.1987 was out of Rs.300/- and, therefore, the question, which deserves consideration is whether the amount of Rs.200/- :7: was an amount of illegal gratification or whether it was the amount of the respondent himself. 7. In Punjabrao’s Punjabrao’s Punjabrao’s case (Supra), the prosecution alleged that the appellant Punjabrao demanded and accepted illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.100/- from the complainant and thus, committed an offence. The appellant admitted recovery of sum of Rs.100/- from him and the acceptance of money by him from the complainant. However, he took plea that an amount of Rs.100/- was not in pursuance of any demand as any illegal gratification but was a loan amount which he was collecting in those days from different raiyats and, therefore, he has not committed any offence either under Section 161 of I.P.C. or under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge felt that the explanation offered by the appellant is probable, reasonable and acceptable and, therefore, acquitted him. High Court in an appeal at the instance of the State came to conclusion that the explanation of the appellant can not be accepted and relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appellant constrained to approach the Apex Court. The Apex Court observed that "it is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established." The :8: Apex Court further observed that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability." Returning to the facts of the present case, it was the defence of the respondent that he had given an amount of Rs.300/- to the complainant for purchasing camera and an amount of Rs.200/- which was received on 7.10.1987 was out of that amount. Suggestion was given by the respondent to the complainant in the cross-examination whether he had paid him Rs.300/- for purchase of camera. The complainant did not straight way deny. However, he replied that he did not remember if such thing was happened. Another suggestion was also given to the complainant that the respondent was demanding and asking him about the camera and the complainant answered that he did not remember whether this thing had happened. If the defence of the respondent is considered alongwith the suggestions put to the complainant and the replies given by the complainant to these suggestions then to my mind, the same is probable. It is to be seen that the respondent has established his defence by preponderance of probability. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can not be said that the defence of the respondent is not probable. In that view of the matter and taking into account the observations of the Apex Court in Punjabrao Punjabrao Punjabrao (Supra), I am of the view that the prosecution has not made out any case for interference :9: in the appeal. 8. The learned Special Judge also held that demand and acceptance of the gratification is not proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The complainant in his deposition testified that he had maintained several necessary record in his studio but because of his absence on 8.9.1987, the same could not be produced before the respondent on that day. Thus, it was the specific case of the complainant that there was no defect in the record or working of his studio. If that was so, then there was no reason for the respondent to demand Rs.500/- as an illegal gratification for preparation and correction of record and secondly, there was also no reason for the complainant to pay anything to the respondent. In view of the above, I do not find any perversity in the conclusion of the learned trial Judge that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is not proved beyond any reasonable doubt. 9. Maps at Exhibits 39 and 40, which are proved by P.W.1 panch witness Darade also creates doubt in the prosecution story. The complainant’s studio is divided in two parts namely, inner cabin and counter. Map shows that gratification was given at two places. Therefore, the prosecution itself is not sure about the place where respondent demanded and accepted illegal gratification. This is one of the circumstances, which goes against the :10: prosecution and in favour of the respondent. 10. The learned trial Judge also recorded the acquittal of the respondent on the ground of defective sanction. In order to prove sanction, prosecution examined P.W.4. Respondent was initially discharged on 16.1.1990 on the ground that sanction was defective and, therefore, the fresh sanction was accorded by P.W.4. Earlier sanction was held to be defective and the respondent was discharged as P.W.4 gave sanction under repealed Act of 1947 though amended provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 had come in to force by that time. If the fresh sanction, which is relied upon by the prosecution at Exhibit 24 is perused, the same is the verbatim and copy of the earlier sanction except adding of the provisions of the new Act. P.W.4 has mentioned in sanction order that the respondent had demanded Rs.500/- and reduced that amount to Rs.200/- and Rs.300/- towards the development and printing charges which was to be adjusted in future. This was not the prosecution case. Mr.Tayade rightly placed reliance in this regard on the Apex Court judgment in State v. Dr.R.C.Anand and Another (Supra) State v. Dr.R.C.Anand and Another (Supra) State v. Dr.R.C.Anand and Another (Supra). The Apex Court in paragraph 13 observed as follows: "13. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and :11: evidence including the transcript of the tape record have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. (See Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma.)" If the deposition of P.W.4 is considered in the light of the above observation of the Apex Court then to my mind no fault can be found in the reasoning recorded by the trial Court. 11. The Apex Court in Kunju Muhammed (Supra) Kunju Muhammed (Supra) Kunju Muhammed (Supra) case held that the appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal unless the same is found to be perverse. I have already found that the reasons recorded by the Special Judge can not said to be perverse and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order can not be interfered with. It is also submitted by Mr.Tayade that the appellant is superannuated in 1983 and as of today, he is 73 years old. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. :12: (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.)