Case: Rambhau  Vs. State Of Maharashtra

any manner of doubt that the prosecution has fully established the demand by Appellant No. 1 on 23rd January, 1989. As regards the demand and acceptance on 24th January, 1989, the High Court also negatived the finding of the learned Special Judge who reached a conclusion that the demand on 24th January, 1989 is completely untrustworthy. It is on this score, it was argued before the High Court that the factum of payment on 24th January as per the version of P.W.1 Sangamlal was not put to the accused persons in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such circumstances cannot be used against the accused. It is on this count, the High Court conducted additional examination of both the accused persons in the High Court so as "to rectify the irregularity as cropped up and pointed out by the defence." 11. Before the High Court strenuous submissions (were) made pertaining to the effect of acceptance of uncorroborated testimony, and the High Court dealt with the issue in the manner following: "7. There cannot be any debate on a broad proposition. Judicial prudence ordinarily look for a corroboration from an independent witness, to the version of the complainant. Undisputedly the Panch does not render corroboration to the version of the complainant on the aspect of demand on 24.1.1989. However, as discussed the circumstances and the facts of the case are peculiar. In the instant case, the demand and acceptance did not take place then and there. After the demand, as claimed, the seizure, took place at a distance of 2 kilometers from the Police Station from PW6. Between demand and seizure, the peculiarity of the case is that there were intervening events. Moreover, the prosecution does not claim direct acceptance by the accused No. 1. We, therefore, propose to examine whether the circumstances which have been brought on record, render corroboration to the demand and acceptance. We may mention at this stage that the accused No. 2 only in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure tried to suggest that owning to his venture of kicking PW 1 Sangamlal, he lodged a false complaint. However, during the entire cross-examination no such allegation was made to PW 1 Sangamlal. The motive as tried to be attributed is imaginary and by way of an after-thought. 8............. 9. During the course of arguments or even otherwise in the cross-examination it is not explained as to how the PW 1 complainant Sangamlal approached the accused No. 2 for getting the notes changed. No suggestion was made to PW 1 Sangamlal in cross-examination on behalf of accused No. 2. There was not even formal inquiry as to why and what for the complainant needed the change of the notes. It was also not suggested that the complainant in any manner was in need of the notes of smaller denominations. As such the entire claim as put forth by the accused No. 2 is completely infirm. It goes to suggest that he took the mission of getting the notes changed as decided earlier. His defence that he happened to be in Shere Punjab Hotel and incidentally the complainant came there is patently false. Taking into account the evidence of PW 1 Sangamlal, PW 3 Manapure, PW 4 Dongre, PW 5 Hadke, PW 6 Wadekar and PW 7 Tijare it is fully established that it is the accused No. 2 who took the complainant for getting the notes exchanged. Even otherwise the defence has not seriously challenged the testimony of PW 4 Dongre, PW 5 Hadke and PW 6 Wedakar in this behalf. 12. Mr. Verma, the learned Senior Advocate very strongly contended that High Court had no authority or jurisdiction to examine the accused persons in the High Court to rectify the defect and the lacuna in the prosecution. The High Court records it to be a mere irregularity and on the complexities of issue, we do not see any reason as to why such a course ought not to be permitted to be taken recourse to, in the fact-situation of the matter under consideration. The omission cannot but be ascribed to be a mere irregularity. The High Court on the basis of relevant evidence on record held that the prosecution has fully established the demand by the accused No. 1 on 23rd January, 1989. It is the demand of 24th January which was said to have not been put to the accused but the factum of demand on an earlier day stands proved and concluded together with the seizure of the tainted notes on 24th January, completes the offence, as such omission to put to the accused, the demand on 24th cannot be said to be of such a nature which would go to the roof of the matter. It is not a defect incurable in nature but a mere irregularity which the High Court thought it fit to cure, as such we do not find any material objection to such a method as stands adopted by the High Court. The irregularity has been cured. The prosecution has clearly established that the Appellant No. 1 is a public servant and in discharge of his official duties made a demand of Rs. 1300/- from PW 1 Sangamlal as an illegal gratification and taking into account the evidence as is available on record, the accused No. 2 also has played a very significant role in negotiating on the figure of the amount and further having the notes exchanged at the dictate of the Appellant No. 1, it cannot thus but be said that the Appellant No. 2 substantially abetted the crime and thus we record our agreement in the finding of the High Court that the accused persons are guilty of the offence for which they were charged and question of recording a finding of acquittal in the matter cannot by any stretch be sustained. In that view of the matter, this Appeal fails and is dismissed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. Mr. Verma, the learned Senior Advocate very strongly contended that High Court had no authority or jurisdiction to examine the accused persons in the High Court to rectify the defect and the lacuna in the prosecution. The High Court records it to be a mere irregularity and on the complexities of issue, we do not see any reason as to why such a course ought not to be permitted to be taken recourse to, in the fact-situation of the matter under consideration. The omission cannot but be ascribed to be a mere irregularity. The High Court on the basis of relevant evidence on record held that the prosecution has fully established the demand by the accused No. 1 on 23rd January, 1989. It is the demand of 24th January which was said to have not been put to the accused but the factum of demand on an earlier day stands proved and concluded together with the seizure of the tainted notes on 24th January, completes the offence, as such omission to put to the accused, the demand on 24th cannot be said to be of such a nature which would go to the roof of the matter. It is not a defect incurable in nature but a mere irregularity which the High Court thought it fit to cure, as such we do not find any material objection to such a method as stands adopted by the High Court. The irregularity has been cured. The prosecution has clearly established that the Appellant No. 1 is a public servant and in discharge of his official duties made a demand of Rs. 1300/- from PW 1 Sangamlal as an illegal gratification and taking into account the evidence as is available on record, the accused No. 2 also has played a very significant role in negotiating on the figure of the amount and further having the notes exchanged at the dictate of the Appellant No. 1, it cannot thus but be said that the Appellant No. 2 substantially abetted the crime and thus we record our agreement in the finding of the High Court that the accused persons are guilty of the offence for which they were charged and question of recording a finding of acquittal in the matter cannot by any stretch be sustained.