available on record, the position is quite different. Accused No.2 has
been roped in this case with the aid of Section 12 of the Act. Section
12 of the Act seeks to punish for abetment of offences punishable
under Section 7 or 11 of the Act. What amounts to abetment of
offence has not been independently defined in the Prevention of
Corruption Act and therefore, for understanding what is meant by
abetment in this Act, one has to take recourse to the provision of
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Under this Section, abetment of
a thing can be done in three different ways; firstly, it can be by
instigation, secondly, it can be by engaging oneself in a criminal
conspiracy and thirdly by intentionally aiding a person in doing an act
which is an offence. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the
first two ways through which abetment is possible as it is not the
prosecution case that accused No.2 had instigated or impelled or
compelled or goaded accused No.1 in any manner in taking bribe nor
is it the case that there was criminal conspiracy between accused No.
1 and 2 or some other person for obtaining of the valuable thing or
money from the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the
complainant was directed by accused No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.
250/ to accused No.2 and thereafter, even the accused No.2 was told
by him to accept that amount. So, this case would be falling in the
third category of the abetment as defined under Section 107 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Now, if we take a look at the prosecution evidence, we
would find that nowhere it has appeared either in the evidence of the
complainant P.W.4 Rajesh or evidence of P.W.1 Mahendra that
accused No.2 was told by accused No.1 that the amount that he was
directed to accept from the complainant was towards the bribe
demanded by accused No.1. There is also no other evidence brought
on record by the prosecution from which an inference of sharing of
same intention by accused No.2 as accused No.1 or same knowledge
by accused No.2 as accused No.1 as regards the amount of Rs.250/,
being the bribe amount can be drawn. When a person is charged with
an offence of abetting commission of offence by means of intentionally
aiding the main accused, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove
that same intention was nurtured by the abettor as the main culprit
himself. That evidence is absolutely lacking in this case. It is quite
possible that a person who is accused of abetment of commission of
offence may accept something for and on behalf of the main accused
innocently and in good faith without doubting that the money that he
is accepting is really a bribe. In other words, the intention of the
abettor may be different from the intention of the main culprit.
Therefore, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the
abettor too had shared the same intention as the main accused. That
is not the case here and, therefore, I am of the view, accused No.2
15.
deserves to be acquitted.
Apart from the lack of evidence of sharing of the same
intention of accused No.1, there is also evidence brought on record by
accused No.2 in support of his defence that the amount of Rs.250/
accepted by him was towards liquidation of the debit balance standing
in the account of accused No.1, which was opened by accused No.1
with accused No.2, a pan stall owner towards purchase of pan on
credit by accused No.1 from accused No.2. P.W.1 Mahendra has
given a clearcut admission in this regard. He states that accused No.1
was directed by accused No.1 to accept the amount from the
complainant and credit the same to his account maintained with him.
It has also appeared through the evidence of P.W.2 Ashok Kshirsagar,
Clerk working in the office of accused No.1, from whom receipt book
had been seized by police, that accused No.2 was in the habit of
supplying pan to various persons working in tahsil office. Of course,
he has pleaded ignorance about supplying of pan on credit to accused
No.1. But the fact remains that accused No.2 was following the
practice of supplying of pan to various employees of tahsil office,
where accused No.1 was working as Naib Tahsildar, on credit and was
also in the habit of maintaining accounts of the employees to whom he
used to supply pan on credit. Therefore, it can be said that accused
No.2 has succeeded in establishing on record through the principle of
preponderance of probabilities that the amount that was accepted by
him from the complainant was believed by him bonafide to be the
payment by accused No.1 through the complainant towards liquidation
of debit balance outstanding against him. Therefore, I find that
accused No.2 has successfully probablised his defence in this case and
the prosecution has not shown that the probability so reasonably
brought on record by accused No.2 has been ruled out by any other
evidence available on record. Thus, I find that the prosecution has
failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt it's charge that accused No.
2 abetted the commission of offence of acceptance of bribe by accused
No.1, which is punishable under Section 12 of the Act.
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 343 OF 1998
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 1998
CRI. APPEAL NO. 343/1998 :
Ulhas s/o Upasrao Salame
.. Versus ..
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : JANUARY 30, 2015
Citation;2015 ALLMR (cri) 2259
Both these appeals are being disposed of by common
1.
judgment as they challenge the judgment and order dated 16/9/1998
passed in Special Case No. 10 of 1994. Appellant Ulhas in criminal
appeal No. 343 of 1998 is accused No.1 and appellant Ramesh in
criminal appeal No. 353 of 1998 is accused No.2. Both the appellants,
for the sake of convenience, are hereinafter referred to as accused No.1
and accused No.2 respectively.
2.
Both the accused were tried for the offences punishable
under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) by the Special
Judge, Wardha.
3.
The allegations against both the accused in nutshell were :
The complainant Rajesh Bhandekar, a building material
supplier from Wardha, had engaged his tractor bearing registration No.
MH32 A1022 and the trolley bearing registration No. MH32 B 1023
along with driver Shamsunder Ghodkhande for transportation of sand
from the river bed of the river Yashoda at Deoli after obtaining royalty
permit from licence holder Jaswantsing Oberai. When the driver of the
tractor and trolley, after loading the trolley with sand, was about to
start for Wardha, he was accosted by accused No.1, who was then
working as Naib Tahsildar at Deoli on the charge that the driver was
transporting sand from the bed of the river situated at a place not
mentioned in the royalty permit. He, therefore, seized the tractor,
trolley and the sand. Complainant Rakesh Bhandekar, on learning
about the said seizure, met accused No.1 on the same day at Deoli and
requested him to release the tractor, trolley and the sand and not to
file any case for the said offence. At that point of time accused No.1
demanded Rs.500/ as bribe amount from Rajesh and as Rajesh was
not in position to pay the entire amount, he requested accused No.1 to
accept an amount of Rs.250/ that he was carrying and release the
tractor, trolley and sand. Accused No.1 told him that he would release
the tractor, trolley and sand on payment of Rs.250/ but remaining
amount Rs.250/ would have to be paid to him on 05/10/1993 and it
was only thereafter that he would drop the proceedings. Accordingly,
the complainant paid an amount of Rs.250/ immediately to accused
No.1 and secured release of the tractor, trolley and sand.
Thereafter, as the complainant was not willing to pay
further amount as a bribe, filed a complaint with Anti Corruption
Bureau, Wardha. It decided to entrap accused No.1 and, therefore,
panchas were called and necessary formalities required for preparation
and completion of the trap were carried out. On 05/10/1993,
however, the trap could not succeed as accused No.1 told the
complainant that he was busy on that day and asked him to meet him
on the next day. On 06/10/1993 the complainant met accused No.1 at
Talathi office at about 4.30 p.m. He was then accompanied by panch
No.1, the shadow witness Mahendra Kumbhare. Accused No.1, in
presence of the shadow witness, asked the complainant to handover
the amount of Rs.250/ to one pan stall owner Ramesh Tayade, who is
accused No.2 in this case. Accused No.2, as instructed by accused No.
1, accepted amount of Rs.250/ and thereafter he as well as accused
No.1 were caught hold of by the members of the raiding party.
Accused No.2 was found to be in possession of the tainted currency
notes, which were four in number and which consisted of currency
note of Rs.100/denomination and three currency notes of Rs. 50/
denomination, totalling to Rs.250/. Another panchanama, which was
pachanama No.4 was prepared. Necessary seizures were carried out
and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against
both the accused persons.
On merits of the case, the trial Court found that the offence
punishable under Section 7 of the Act was proved beyond reasonable
doubt against accused No.1 and offence punishable under Section
read with Section 7 of the Act was found to be proved against accused
No.2 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, by the judgment and
order passed on 16/9/1998 the Special Judge, Wardha convicted and
sentenced both the accused. Accused No.1 was sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for two years together with fine of Rs.1,000/
and default sentence of six months. Accused No.2 was sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of
Rs.500/ with default sentence of three months. Not being satisfied
with the same, both the accused are before this Court in the present
appeals.
5.
I have heard Shri Kukday, learned Counsel for accused
No.1, Shri Dharkar, learned Counsel for accused No.2 and Shri Ikre,
learned A.P.P. for the State. I have carefully perused the impugned
judgment and order and record of the case.
6.
It is the contention of learned Counsel for accused No.1 that
the evidence as brought on record against accused No.1 is highly
discrepant in nature and does not inspire confidence of the Court. He
submits that in order to prove the offence of demand of bribe as illegal
gratification punishable under Section 7 of the Act, it is necessary for
the prosecution to establish that the amount has been demanded for
doing some official work and in this case there has been absolutely no
evidence showing that the amount of Rs.250/ was demanded by
accused No.1 for doing any official work. He submits that there has
been no substantive evidence brought in this regard by the prosecution
and, therefore, benefit of doubt deserves to be given to accused No.1.
He also submits that it is also not clear that as to exactly in what
manner the amount has been allegedly accepted by accused No.2 at
the behest of accused No.1 as panch No.1 Mahendra Kumbhare
(P.W.1) states that the amount of Rs.250/ was placed on the table
before accused No.1 and thereafter it was paid to accused No.2 and
that this transaction took place after taking of pan by accused No.1 and
the complainant. He submits that P.W.4 Rajesh Bhandekar, the
complainant, however, has stated that accused No.1 directed the
complainant to pay an amount of Rs.250/ to accused No.2 and he
does not say anything about laying of the said amount on the table
before him. He further submits that the complainant also does not say
as to when the said transaction took place whether it was after having
coffee and before having pan or after having both, and thus, serious
doubt about the credibility of the complainant has arisen in this case.
He also submits that the complainant being building material supplier
was supposed to know that once the tractor, trolley and sand were
released by the Tahsildar, proceedings initiated as per the provisions of
Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code automatically
come to an end and, therefore, there was really no work pending with
accused No.1 of the complainant for which the complainant could have
7.
been asked to pay some amount.
Shri Dharkar, learned Counsel for accused No.2 submits
that basically it is for the prosecution to prove that a person who is
accused of abetment of an offence has intentionally aided the other
accused to commit the offence and it can be proved as in the instant
case, only by bringing on record necessary evidence indicating that
accused No.2 did possess knowledge that the amount that he was
directed to accept from the complainant was towards the bribe money
being paid to accused No.1. He submits that this basic ingredient of
the offence of abetment having not been proved by the prosecution in
this case, no criminal liability can be fastened upon accused No.2. He
also submits that on the other hand accused No.2 has succeeded in
bringing on record some important facts which probablise his defence.
He submits that P.W.1 Mahendra Kumbhare, panch No.1, has
admitted that before accepting money from the complainant, accused
No.1 had told him that the amount being paid by the complainant
should be credited to his account. He further submits that it has been
specific defence of accused No.2 that he used to supply pan to accused
No.1 on credit and he used to maintain account of purchase of pan on
credit by accused No.1 from him from time to time. Further, he
According to learned A.P.P. for the State, there is ample
8.
by the Special Court.
submits that accused No.2 has been wrongly convicted and sentenced
evidence against both the accused and there are no sufficient grounds
shown by the accused to make any interference in the impugned
judgment and order. He submits that the discrepancies pointed out by
learned Counsel for accused No.1 are very minor in nature and do not
amount to any contradiction of the stand taken by the complainant as
well as panch No.1 in their respective testimonies before the Court.
Therefore, according to him, those discrepancies deserve to be ignored.
He also submits that even though P.W.4 Rajesh Bhandekar has not
specifically deposed about the pendency of work with accused No.1 for
which clearance he had paid an amount of Rs.250/ as directed by
accused No.1, the fact remains that the prosecution has established
demand of bribe amount by accused No.1 and it's acceptance by
accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 and, therefore, Section 20
presumption gets attracted by virtue of which, it can be said that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as regards
demand of money as illegal gratification by accused No.1. He submits
that upon consideration of the entire evidence available on record, one
can very well see that accused No.1 has not rebutted Section 20
presumption arising in this case and, therefore, it has to be said that
the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court as against accused No.1
is legal, calling for no interference with it. He further submits that as
regards accused No.2 also, there being sufficient evidence establishing
the fact that he had assisted accused No.1 in taking the bribe amount
from the complainant and whatever defence put forward by accused
No.2 being neither proved nor probalised by bringing on record
material facts, there would be no scope for making any interference
with the finding of guilt of accused No.2 recorded by the trial Court as
well. He urges that both the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
9.
Upon consideration of the evidence available on record and
what has been found by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and
order, I am of the view that so far as the prosecution case as against
accused No.1 is concerned, there is great substance in the argument
advanced by learned A.P.P. for the State, but, so far as the case of
accused No.2 is concerned, I find that the prosecution case as against
accused No.2 stands on very shaky grounds and, therefore, there is
Court as against accused No.2 only.
10.
scope for making interference with the finding recorded by the trial
The prosecution case has been mainly proved through the
evidence of the complainant Rajesh Bhandekar (P.W.4) and panch No.
1 Mahendra Kumbhare (P.W.1). Therefore, it would be appropriate
10.1
to bestow all attention to their testimonies.
P.W.4 Rajesh Bhandekar has clearly stated that when he
reached the office of Talathi where accused No.1 was present, he was
asked by accused No.1 as to whether or not he had brought the
amount of Rs.250/ and thereupon P.W.1 replied as in the affirmative
and produced that amount before accused No.1. He has further stated
that thereafter accused No.1 asked him to pay the amount to the pan
stall owner and then, accused No.1 called accused No.2 to the place
where P.W.1 Rajesh and accused No.1 were having the said
conversation and then directed accused No.2 to accept the amount
from the complainant. Accordingly, accused No.2 accepted the
amount.
10.2
It is true that in his crossexamination, P.W.4 has given
some admissions, which, at the first blush create doubt about his credit
worthiness. But, when these admissions are considered in the light of
other evidence on record, the doubt so created fades away. According
to these admissions, an amount of Rs.250/ was not given to accused
No.2 but was given to accused No.1 by the complainant. These
admissions are to the effect, “Accused Salame gave amount to accused
Ramesh” and that accused Salame never paid the amount to accused
Ramesh. These admissions, certainly run counter to what P.W.4
Rajesh has stated in his examinationinchief. P.W.4 Rajesh maintains
that when the amount of Rs.250/ was produced before accused No.1,
he was asked by accused No.1 to pay that amount to the pan stall
owner, who is accused No.2 in the instant case and accordingly the
amount was paid to accused No.2. These two versions being
contradictory to each other, only one of them can be true. Therefore,
in order to ascertain which one of them is true one has to turn to other
evidence available on record. In other words, we have to look for
something which corroborates either of these two versions.
10.3
P.W.1 Mahendra is panch No.1, who was present during
the entire conversation and transaction that took place in between the
complainant and accused No.1. If we carefully go through his
evidence, we would find that P.W.1 Mahendra supports the version of
the complainant as it appears in his examinationinchief and it does
not at all support admissions given by P.W.4 in his crossexamination
to the effect that an amount of Rs.250/ was not paid by him to
Ramesh, accused No.2 but to Ulhas, accused No.1. Then, pachanama
No.4 (Exh.33) which witnesses the entire process of ascertaining
presence or absence of phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the
persons involved in the transaction and also on the shirt pocket and
fullpant pockets of the complainant and accused No.2 respectively and
also various seizures made at that point of time, also supports the
version of the complainant as appearing in his examinationinchief.
This panchanama clearly discloses the fact that when the hands of
accused No.1 were washed with sodium carbonate solution, the
solution did not change its colour. This is a scientific evidence and
there is no reason for me nor any reason has been shown to me by
learned Counsel for accused No.1 to reject this evidence. It clearly
shows that both the hands of accused No.1 were not found to be
having any traces of phenolphthalein powder. If this was the case, it
has to be said what P.W.4 Rajesh has stated in his examinationin
chief that amount was paid to Ramesh, accused No.2 at the behest of
accused No.1 is correct and what is stated by him in his cross
examination is incorrect.
After all, appearance of accused No.2 in this crime was
quite an unexpected event and it occurred, perhaps on the spur of
moment coming from accused No.1. Therefore, it is possible that those
admissions might have been given by P.W.4 Rajesh without really
understanding the nature of questions put. It is also possible that by
those answers he might have wanted to convey that though the notes
were handed over to accused No.2, the payment of bribe was made to
accused No.1. Therefore, these admissions cannot be said to be
11.
by P.W.1 Mahendra.
contradicting the version of the complainant as well as the stand taken
As regards the other discrepancies pointed out by learned
Counsel for accused No.1 which relate to placing of currency notes on
table, handing over of currency notes before having pan etc., I would
say that they are minor in nature and do not really go to discredit the
prosecution witnesses on the core case that there was demand of bribe
by accused No.1 and it's payment to accused No.1 by the complainant
and, therefore, require no threadbare consideration.
12.
Thus, from the evidence of both the afore stated witnesses
and the circumstantial evidence in the nature of panchanama (Exh.
33), it can be seen that the prosecution has established beyond
reasonable doubt the facts that there was demand of bribe money by
accused No.1 and there was acceptance of an amount of Rs.250/ by
accused No.2 on the directions of accused No.1. So far as accused
No.1 is concerned, the necessary ingredients of demand and
acceptance of bribe money can be seen to be fulfilled from the said
evidence. Of course, P.W.4 Rajesh has not deposed very specifically
about either pendency of the work or nature of the work that was
pending with accused No.1 for which the bribe money was demanded
by accused No.1. But, as the prosecution has succeeded in establishing
the demand and acceptance of bribe money, as required by Section
of the Act, the presumption that the amount of Rs.250/ was accepted
as a bribe money or as a motive or reward for doing an official work
would have been raised in this case and is drawn accordingly. This
presumption is rebuttable, however, accused No.1 has not rebutted it
as can be seen from the manner in which the crossexamination of
prosecution witnesses on behalf of accused No.1 has been conducted.
Not a single suggestion has been given either to the complainant or
panch No.1 or the Investigating Officer that no work was pending with
accused No.1 at the relevant time or that after the tractor, trolley and
sand were released to the custody of the complainant on 05/10/1993,
in view of the provisions of Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, the proceedings came to be automatically closed. Even
no suggestion has been given to any of the witnesses that the
complainant Rajesh being a veteran in the field of transportation of
sand, knew everything about the violation of relevant provisions of
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and also about the stage when such a
proceeding can be said to be terminated. In order to probablise the
defence of the accused, it is necessary that some foundation in the
evidence of the prosecution is laid. That foundation is not seen
anywhere in the prosecution evidence. Even in the statement recorded
under Section 313, Cr. P. C., accused No.1 has not said anything about
closure of the proceedings or knowledge of the complainant about
termination or closure of proceedings upon release of the tractor,
trolley and sand to him. Thus, I find that the presumption arising from
Section 20 of the Act has not been rebutted by accused No.1 and,
therefore, I find that the trial Court has correctly found accused No.1
as guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, which
relates to accepting of bribe amount as illegal gratification, as motive
or reward, for doing an official work. Therefore, so far as accused No.
1 is concerned, I do not see that there are any sufficient grounds for
making interference with the finding of guilt recorded by the trial
Court.
13.
As regards accused No.2, it can be seen from the evidence
available on record, the position is quite different. Accused No.2 has
been roped in this case with the aid of Section 12 of the Act. Section
12 of the Act seeks to punish for abetment of offences punishable
under Section 7 or 11 of the Act. What amounts to abetment of
offence has not been independently defined in the Prevention of
Corruption Act and therefore, for understanding what is meant by
abetment in this Act, one has to take recourse to the provision of
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Under this Section, abetment of
a thing can be done in three different ways; firstly, it can be by
instigation, secondly, it can be by engaging oneself in a criminal
conspiracy and thirdly by intentionally aiding a person in doing an act
which is an offence. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the
first two ways through which abetment is possible as it is not the
prosecution case that accused No.2 had instigated or impelled or
compelled or goaded accused No.1 in any manner in taking bribe nor
is it the case that there was criminal conspiracy between accused No.
1 and 2 or some other person for obtaining of the valuable thing or
money from the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the
complainant was directed by accused No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.
250/ to accused No.2 and thereafter, even the accused No.2 was told
by him to accept that amount. So, this case would be falling in the
third category of the abetment as defined under Section 107 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Now, if we take a look at the prosecution evidence, we
would find that nowhere it has appeared either in the evidence of the
complainant P.W.4 Rajesh or evidence of P.W.1 Mahendra that
accused No.2 was told by accused No.1 that the amount that he was
directed to accept from the complainant was towards the bribe
demanded by accused No.1. There is also no other evidence brought
on record by the prosecution from which an inference of sharing of
same intention by accused No.2 as accused No.1 or same knowledge
by accused No.2 as accused No.1 as regards the amount of Rs.250/,
being the bribe amount can be drawn. When a person is charged with
an offence of abetting commission of offence by means of intentionally
aiding the main accused, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove
that same intention was nurtured by the abettor as the main culprit
himself. That evidence is absolutely lacking in this case. It is quite
possible that a person who is accused of abetment of commission of
offence may accept something for and on behalf of the main accused
innocently and in good faith without doubting that the money that he
is accepting is really a bribe. In other words, the intention of the
abettor may be different from the intention of the main culprit.
Therefore, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the
abettor too had shared the same intention as the main accused. That
is not the case here and, therefore, I am of the view, accused No.2
15.
deserves to be acquitted.
Apart from the lack of evidence of sharing of the same
intention of accused No.1, there is also evidence brought on record by
accused No.2 in support of his defence that the amount of Rs.250/
accepted by him was towards liquidation of the debit balance standing
in the account of accused No.1, which was opened by accused No.1
with accused No.2, a pan stall owner towards purchase of pan on
credit by accused No.1 from accused No.2. P.W.1 Mahendra has
given a clearcut admission in this regard. He states that accused No.1
was directed by accused No.1 to accept the amount from the
complainant and credit the same to his account maintained with him.
It has also appeared through the evidence of P.W.2 Ashok Kshirsagar,
Clerk working in the office of accused No.1, from whom receipt book
had been seized by police, that accused No.2 was in the habit of
supplying pan to various persons working in tahsil office. Of course,
he has pleaded ignorance about supplying of pan on credit to accused
No.1. But the fact remains that accused No.2 was following the
practice of supplying of pan to various employees of tahsil office,
where accused No.1 was working as Naib Tahsildar, on credit and was
also in the habit of maintaining accounts of the employees to whom he
used to supply pan on credit. Therefore, it can be said that accused
No.2 has succeeded in establishing on record through the principle of
preponderance of probabilities that the amount that was accepted by
him from the complainant was believed by him bonafide to be the
payment by accused No.1 through the complainant towards liquidation
of debit balance outstanding against him. Therefore, I find that
accused No.2 has successfully probablised his defence in this case and
the prosecution has not shown that the probability so reasonably
brought on record by accused No.2 has been ruled out by any other
evidence available on record. Thus, I find that the prosecution has
failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt it's charge that accused No.
2 abetted the commission of offence of acceptance of bribe by accused
No.1, which is punishable under Section 12 of the Act.
16.
Learned Special Judge, as seen from the impugned
judgment and order, has not considered the aforestated material
aspects of the case emerging from the evidence available on record
and, therefore, I am of the view that the finding of guilt of accused No.
2 recorded by the trial Court for an offence punishable under Section
12 of the Act cannot be sustained in law.
17.
In the circumstances, Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 1998
deserves to be dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 353 deserves to be
allowed.
I. Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 1998 stands dismissed.
II. The trial Court shall take steps to execute the
sentence against accused No.1 Ulhas Upasrao
Salame, in accordance with law.
III. Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 1998 is allowed.
ig
IV. Accused No.2 Ramesh Bhauraoji Tayade is hereby
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 12
read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
V. The amount of fine paid by him be refunded to him.
VI. His bail bond stands discharged.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment