Sunday 5 July 2015

How to appreciate evidence in case of abetment of offences under prevention of corruption Act


         
    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. 



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
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

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment