then Deputy Engineer of the Zilla Parishad would show
that he was the sanctioning authority of the T.A. bills.
He himself was on earned leave for the period from
17/5/1995 to 16/6/1995. The bills could not have been
sanctioned without log book and the said log book was
with the Senior Clerk Mr. Kadam. Even the said Senior
Clerk Mr. Kadam was on leave during the said period.
Besides this, this witness, thereafter, was on training
from 12/6/1995 to 16/6/1995. Further, the bills of the
complainant were already prepared by the accused and he
(P.W.3) had signed the said T.A. bills on 10th or 11th
June, 1995.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra,
Vs.
Maroti Putaji Tagadpalle,
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 30/04/2015
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)4292
2. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent by
the learned Special Judge, Nanded vide judgment and
order dated 15/2/2002 from the offences punishable under
section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of the
Corruption Act, 1988, the present appeal is preferred by
the State.
3. The prosecution case in short is as under:
. That respondent – Maroti works as a Clerk in
the Office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Zilla
Parishad Sub Division at Hadgaon, District – Nanded.
During the relevant period, complainant P.W. 1 – Milind
Malik Sakle was working as a Road Roller Driver. The
T.A. bills of the complainant which were filed on
17/5/1995 were pending in the Office. The respondent
was required to process the same. He (complainant)
therefore requested the respondent on 45 occasions for
sanctioning of the bills. On 12/6/1995, at about 1.00
pm., when the complainant visited the Office, at that
time, the respondent made a demand of Rs.175/ as bribe
and further warned that unless the same is paid, the
bills would not be passed. The complainant paid an
amount of Rs.25/ to the respondent and assured to make
the balance of the payment lateron that is upon receipt
of the salary. He received the salary on 13/6/1995.
Since the complainant did not want to pay any bribe to
the respondent, he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau
of Nanded and filed the complaint to this effect on
14/6/1995 at Exhibit 10.
. P.W. 5 – Deputy Superintendent of Police of the
Anti Corruption Bureau, namely, Devidas Penurkar
recorded the complaint and conducted the investigation.
On the same day, he thereafter collected two panch
witnesses from the Building and Construction Department
of Nanded by making request to their Senior.
Accordingly, P.W. 2 Baban Deshmukh and Ashok Sone
attended the Anti Corruption Bureau Office as the
panchas. Thereat, usual exercise of reading over of the
complaint, giving demonstration regarding the anthracene
powder, collection of decoy money of Rs.150/ from the
complainant, applying the anthracene powder to the decoy
money was carried. The decoy money were two currency
notes in the denomination of Rs.100/ and Rs.50/. The
amount was kept in the left side shirt pocket of the
complainant.
. Thereafter, by a private jeep, the raiding
party went to Hadgaon at the Office. Thereat, P.W. 2
Baban Deshmukh was kept in the company of the
complainant to visit the respondent. The respondent was
not found in the Office. Therefore, the party went to
the house of the respondent. He was however not found
there. Therefore, the party again returned back to the
Office. At that time, the respondent was however found
in the Office.
. During talk, the complainant told the
respondent that he had brought the amount, whereupon the
respondent told that all of them would take tea
together. Therefore, the complainant, the panch and the
respondent went to the canteen which is behind the
Office. In the canteen, the respondent made demand of
the money. Thereupon, the complainant paid the decoy
money to the respondent. He accepted the same and kept
it in the pocket of his shirt. Thereupon, the
complainant gave signal upon coming out of the canteen.
The raiding party reached on the spot. The respondent
was caught and, thereafter, the exercise regarding
testing the person and the clothes of the concerned
under the ultraviolet lamp was undertaken. The hands
of the respondent and hands of the complainant were
found positive for application of anthracene powder.
Panchanama of the same was prepared.
. Thereafter the Investigating Officer collected
the documents concerning the transaction from the
Office. Necessary sanction to prosecute the respondent
was obtained by the Investigating Officer from P.W. 4
Anil Diggikar, the then Chief Executive Officer of Zilla
Parishad and the chargesheet came to be filed.
4. Before the learned Special Judge, in all five
witnesses were examined. Those were P.W.1/complainant
Milind Sakle, P.W. 2 Panch Mr. Baban Deshmukh,
P.W. 3 Deputy Engineer of Zilla Parishad, namely,
Gunderao Anmole, who has produced the documents. P.W. 4
Anil Diggikar, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla
Parishad, Nanded and P.W. 5 the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police i.e. the Investigating Officer
Devidas Penurkar.
. The learned Special Judge, however, came to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt. It was found that the
work of sanction of the T.A. bills was not within the
jurisdiction of the respondent. P.W. 2 Baban deposed
that he was unable to hear the conversation between the
complainant and the respondent. Further, the payment of
the bills was delayed not due to any malafide activity
of the respondent but as the superior officer was on
long leave, as has been proved. Further, the case of
acceptance was not proved as only two fingers of the
respondent were found positive for application of the
anthracene powder and even his shirt pocket was found
negative regarding application of the anthracene powder.
In the circumstances, the trial Court held that the
defence that at the time of taking tea, the complainant
attempted to give currency note of Rs.5/ to the hotel
owner and, thereafter, shook hand with the respondent.
Further, though, admittedly, independent witnesses were
available in the canteen, none of them were examined and
hence the acquittal came to be recorded.
5. Mr. Palnitkar, learned A.P.P. submits that P.W.
2, the panch witness initially turned hostile to the
prosecution case. He deposed that he was unable to hear
the conversation between the complainant and the
respondent as they were talking in low tone but the said
hostile witness has also supported the prosecution case
that an amount of Rs.150/ i.e. the decoy money was
passed by the complainant to the respondent as against
the defence case that attempt was to give currency note
of Rs.5/ only to the respondent and, thereafter, the
complainant shook hand with the respondent, thereby
making it possible that some fingers of the respondent
would be tested positive under the ultraviolet lamp.
In the circumstances, he submits that when the
prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
learned Special Judge ought to have convicted the
respondent.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel
for the respondent supports the reasoning of the learned
trial Court.
7. On the basis of this material, following points
arise for my determination:
i) Whether the prosecution has proved that on
12/6/1995, the respondent attempted to obtain
an amount of Rs.175/ from the complainant as
gratification other than the legal remuneration
as reward for sanctioning of the T.A. bills?
ii) Whether the prosecution has proved that on
12/6/1995, the respondent accepted the advance
of the illegal gratification of Rs.25/?
iii) Whether the prosecution has proved that
on 14/6/1995, the present respondent at
Hadgaon, accepted an amount of Rs.150/ as
illegal gratification, as detailed supra?
iv) Whether the prosecution has proved that
the respondent being a public servant, has
attempted to obtain an amount of Rs.150/ by
corrupt or illegal means by abusing his
position as a public servant?
My finding to all the aforesaid points is in the
negative. The appeal is therefore dismissed for the
reasons to follow.
R E A S O N S
8. The evidence of P.W. 3 Gunderao Anmole, the
then Deputy Engineer of the Zilla Parishad would show
that he was the sanctioning authority of the T.A. bills.
He himself was on earned leave for the period from
17/5/1995 to 16/6/1995. The bills could not have been
sanctioned without log book and the said log book was
with the Senior Clerk Mr. Kadam. Even the said Senior
Clerk Mr. Kadam was on leave during the said period.
Besides this, this witness, thereafter, was on training
from 12/6/1995 to 16/6/1995. Further, the bills of the
complainant were already prepared by the accused and he
(P.W.3) had signed the said T.A. bills on 10th or 11th
June, 1995.
9. P.W. 2, the panch witness initially deposed
that in the canteen, the complainant and the respondent
were conversing in low tone as against his alleged
earlier statement to the Investigating Officer that he
had heard the respondent making demand of the
gratification. He however deposed that in the canteen
the complainant gave amount of Rs.150/ i.e. the decoy
money to the respondent and the respondent kept the same
in his shirt pocket. He thereafter deposed that the
said decoy money was found in the pocket of the shirt of
the respondent, which tested positive to the ultraviolet
lighting test. The witness was thereafter
declared hostile and he was crossexamined. During
crossexamination, he deposed that after demand from the
respondent, the complainant paid the decoy money to the
respondent.
10. It was suggested to the complainant during
crossexamination that the respondent wanted to pay the
bill of tea but the complainant restrained him. He
further denied that when the respondent tried to hand
over the note of Rs.5/, at that time, the complainant
by his hand restrained him to do so and in the process,
he caught the hands of the respondent. He further
denied that the said only currency note of Rs.5/ was
found glittering during the ultraviolet light
examination. He denied that as his bill was pending for
long time, he became angry and, therefore, he filed a
false complaint against the respondent.
11. The evidence on record thus would show that the
bill was pending since long; firstly because of the
leave of P.W. 3 Gunderao Anmole and, thereafter, due
to the absence of the Senior Clerk. Though P.W. 2 has
turned hostile to the prosecution case, it is found that
the prosecution case itself that only two fingers of the
respondent were seen smeared with anthracene powder and
above all, the shirt pocket of the respondent was
admittedly not tested positive as found by the
panchanama at Exhibit 15.
12. Mr. Sharma further points that while there is
no specific case as to when the advance of Rs.25/ was
paid. Further, it is not the prosecution case that it
was agreed between the complainant and the respondent
that the balance of the amount of Rs.150/ would be paid
on 14/6/1995 at a specific time. Further, the
prosecution case would show that infact, the raiding
party was in search of the respondent i.e. first at his
Office and then at his house and again at the Office.
Further, the evidence of P.W. 2 would show that he was
unable to hear the conversation between the complainant
and the respondent and, therefore, he submits that the
reasoning of the learned Special Judge cannot be faulted
with.
13. Upon giving thoughtful consideration to the
above material, in my view, the learned Special Judge
has taken a reasonable and probable view. It is to be
found that no date and time was fixed for acceptance of
the amount. The raiding party was in search of the
respondent at various places, as detailed supra. While
only two fingers of the respondent were found positive
of the application of anthracene powder, his shirt
pocket where the alleged money was allegedly kept, was
found negative for the same. P.W. 2 did not support the
prosecution case wholehearted by deposing that he was
unable to hear the conversation between the respondent
and the complainant.
14. In that view of the matter, since the learned
Special Judge has taken a reasonable and probable view
of the material before him, in the present appeal
against acquittal, no interference is warranted.
In the result, the following order:
15. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The bail
bonds, if any of the respondent shall stand cancelled.
Sd/
[M.T. JOSHI]
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment