1 Apeal 656-96 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.656 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra .Appellant V/s. 1. Laxman Keshav Chavan .Respondents Occup:Service, Talathi in Special Land Acquisition Office No.10, Resident of near D.ED college, Nehru nagar, Vijapur road, Solapur. 2. Swamirao Tatyarao More Occup:Talathi in Special Land Acquisition Office No.10 Resident of 7/2 Modikhana, Solapur. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for the Appellant Mrs.S.D.Khot, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT . This Appeal is directed against acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned Special Judge, Solapur for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) & Section 12 of the 2 Apeal 656-96 Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this Appeal are as under :- The respondents were working as Talathis and were attached to the Special Land Acquisition office No.10 at Solapur. The land bearing Gat No.91/2/B at village Sawaleshwar, Taluka North Solapur, District Solapur had been acquired in which the first informant Hanmantrao Amrutrao Nagtilak had ½ share. Other ½ share was with Rukminibai and Sudamati. Compensation of Rs.42,900/- had been fixed which was to be disbursed to first informant Hanmantrao Nagtilak and others. There was a delay in disbursement of compensation on one or other pretext like measurement map not being drawn. It has come on record that in fact, measurement was not done and it was done after the trap and thereafter, the compensation was paid. The first informant Hanmantrao Nagtilak went along 3 Apeal 656-96 with Vikram Kumbhar to the office of Talathi, since Vikram Kumbhar was to help to find a way out. Accused No.2 Swamirao Tatyarao More is supposed to have told accused No.1 Laxman Chavan to accept Rs.4000/- and finish the matter. Laxman Chavan accordingly demanded a sum of Rs.4000/-. Hanmantrao Nagtilak claims to have paid a sum of Rs.100/- and assured to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- on the next day. After this talk on 27 th January, 1992, Hanmantrao Nagtilak approached Anti Corruption Bureau and gave a report. Panchas were called, complaint was verified and the trap was laid on 28 th January, 1992. 30 currency notes of Rs.100/- each produced by the first informant were smeared with Anthracene powder. An elaborate panchanama was drawn and the party proceeded to the office of the respondents. It may be mentioned here that record shows that the office of Land Acquisition No.10 had ceased to defence from 26 th January, 1992 that is just two days before the trap. 4 Apeal 656-96 3. The first informant accompanied by panch Bhimrao Bapurao Surwase met the respondents in an open space opposite the office. The Complainant asked the respondent Laxman Chavan about his work. Thereafter, the respondent, first informant and panch went to a canteen where Laxman Chavan is supposed to have asked the first informant as to whether he had brought money. On receiving an affirmative answer from the first informant, respondent No.2 Swamirao Tatyarao More suggested that they first go to the office and finish the work of the first informant. When they were proceeding towards the office, near the entrance of the office Laxman is supposed to have again asked for money and the first informant paid a sum of Rs.3000/- in the form of tainted notes of Rs.100/- each to respondent Laxman, who counted the notes with his both hands, took out paper from his pocket and kept the notes in his palm in the fold of the paper. When they entered the office on 5 Apeal 656-96 receiving signal from the first informant, raiding party swooped and seized the tainted notes. Hands and palms of Laxman were found to be glow in ultraviolet light. The piece of paper in which notes were kept was also found to glow. The other articles as well as other incriminating articles were seized. An elaborate panchanama was drawn up. 4. An offence was registered by the raiding officer PW-7 Yunus Ismail Shaikh, Police Inspector, ACB, Solapur. On completion of investigation, papers were sent to PW-4 Shekhar Narayan Gaikwad, SDO, Baramati for according sanction for prosecution. After he sanctioned the prosecution, a charge sheet was sent to the learned Special Judge at Solapur. 5. The learned Special Judge charged the respondent No.1 of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) & respondent No.2 Section 12 of the 6 Apeal 656-96 Prevention of Corruption Act. Since they pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the respondents. After considering the evidence tendered in the light of defence of denial and being falsely involved, the learned trial Judge held among other things that the investigating officer did not have the power to investigate into the offences. However, there was no prejudice or miscarriage of justice, and therefore, the trial was not vitiated. On facts, he held that the charge of demanding or receiving bribe was not proved and therefore, proceeded to acquit the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred this Appeal. 6. I have heard the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. With the help of both the learned Counsel I have gone through the evidence on 7 Apeal 656-96 record. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the scope of scrutiny of evidence in an appeal against acquittal is restricted and drew my attention to a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Versus Bhalchandra Nemgonda Chougule & another, reported at 2004(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 82 where the Court had quoted from Judgments of the Supreme Court in Tota Singh v. State of Punjab, reported at A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1083, Dhanna v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2478 and had concluded that the High Court can interfere with the order of acquittal when the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is perverse or the conclusion drawn by it cannot be drawn on any view of the evidence or that the view taken by the acquitting Court is impermissible on the evidence on record or when there is 8 Apeal 656-96 substantial omission to consider the evidence existing on record. 8. The learned APP submitted that even by applying these yard sticks the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Judge must be held to be thoroughly improper and if the order of acquittal is allowed to stand it would result in miscarriage of justice. She pointed out that the learned Judge had given unnecessary importance to the fact that the Complainant did not disclose to PW-2 Vikram Digamber Kumbhar about negotiation between the Complainant and the respondents on the date when the first demand was made. She submitted that the evidence of Vikram Kumbhar substantially corroborates the evidence of the first informant PW-3 Hanmantrao Nagtilak. She pointed out that Vikram Kumbhar had stated about this encounter elaborately and minor discrepancies as to whether respondent No.1 had taken the parties outside or whether a sum 9 Apeal 656-96 of Rs.100/- was not paid in the gallery or varhanda should not have influenced by the conclusions drawn by the learned Judge. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Judge rightly concluded that the Complainant's not discussing with Vikram Kumbhar payment of bribe amount or about negotiations, when he had himself brought Vikram Kumbhar to help him and settle the matter was extraordinary. The learned Judge held on considering the claim of PW-2 Vikram Kumbhar that he left the Complainant at the office of the respondents without any discussion was incredible. This conclusion cannot be called perverse or impermissible. 9. In this case, both the Complainant PW-3 Hanmantrao Nagtilak and panch PW-6 Bhimrao Surwase state that the respondents had come to canteen and from the canteen without accepting any money in the canteen they left 10 Apeal 656-96 for the office. The learned Judge found that conduct of accused in demanding bribe money in open near the gate of the office was unnatural, when the transaction could have been executed safely in the canteen itself. The learned Judge found that both PW-3 Hanmantrao Nagtilak and PW-6 Bhimrao Surwase have stated that the members of the raiding party were very much visible when the amount was given. If that was so, according to the learned Judge, ordinarily, a person would not have received the money in open, since it was not lonely place. The learned APP submits that there is nothing incredible in accepting money in front of the gate or not accepting it in the canteen, because, according to her, it would be choice of the bribe taker as to which was the spot with the least risk for entering into such transactions. All the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, view taken by the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse or 11 Apeal 656-96 erroneous, since ordinarily a person would prefer a lonely spot for such transaction rather than having it executed at the gate of office. 10. The learned trial Judge has observed that while the panchanama recounts that bribe money was recovered at the hands of the accused and the hands of the accused were examined in ultraviolet light. PW-6 Bhimrao Surwase does not state that palms of respondent No.1 were examined in ultraviolet light or that they emitted any glow. Therefore, according to the learned Judge, failure of PW-6 to state about examination of palms of respondent No.1 would create a possibility that palms were not examined. 11. The learned APP submitted that the respondents had not taken any defence that no such money was found with respondent No.1 and had not offered any explanation for blue gloss 12 Apeal 656-96 found on the palms and finger tips of the respondent No.1 when examined in ultraviolet light. Therefore, according to her, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 that the amount was, in fact, paid to respondent No.1. 12. First, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the evidence of PW-3 is unhelpful to find as to what sort of examination was carried out after the bribe money was paid. This leaves the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7. As already recounted PW-6 Bhimrao Surwase did not state about examination of palms of the respondents. PW-7 stated that only fingertips of hands of respondent No.1 glowed, whereas panchanama records that fingers as well as palms of the respondent No.1 glowed in ultraviolet light. It cannot be said that the learned Judge could not at all have given any credence to these discrepancies or ought to have rejected them 13 Apeal 656-96 while appreciating the evidence on this point. Therefore, since the evidence cannot be said to have been perversely appreciated or cannot be said to have been ignored by the learned Judge, merely because another view could have been formed on the basis of same evidence, it would be impermissible to set aside an acquittal. 13. In view of this, the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge being in tune with the evidence tendered before him, properly appreciated by him do not call for any interference. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)