considerable importance. In this case, the trap was laid and the
raid was effected in the court premises itself. It was arranged
during the working hours of court. No permission appears to have
been obtained from the High court or the Judge incharge of the
Judicial Administration of the District, before laying such a trap.
If the investigating agencies are permitted to lay traps in the court
premises, on working days and during the working hours, it would
not be conducive to the administration of justice. The staff
attached to a Judge discharges duties under the instructions of the
Presiding Officer. If the Police Officers, whose subordination to the
Judicial Magistrate is evident from the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and who frequently visit the courts for
obtaining remand or as witnesses, are allowed to raid the court
premises without permission of the Presiding Officer of the court
or the Principal District Judge, or the High court, there is every
possibility of a serious threat to the administration of justice and
the independence of judiciary, being posed. A similar view was
taken by the Allahabad High Court in Surendra Sahai and Others
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1997 Cri.L.J.1670. In my
opinion, therefore, it was absolutely improper on the part of the
investigating agency to have laid a trap without seeking the
previous permission of the Judge incharge of the Judicial
Administration of the District or the High court and without
seeking permission to lay such a trap.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 OF 2000
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
V/s.
ANNASAHEB MAHADEV BHANDARE
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 27th JULY 2015.
Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI) 1505
1 The respondent was prosecuted on the allegation of
having committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 and
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C.Act'). After holding a
trial, the learned Special Judge, Kolhapur, by his judgment and
order dated 29th September 1999 held the respondent not guilty
and acquitted him. The State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by the
said order of acquittal, and has therefore, after obtaining the leave
of this court, filed the present appeal challenging the same.
2 I have heard Mr.Deepak Thakre, the learned APP for
the State. I have heard Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, the learned
counsel for the respondent. With their assistance, I have gone
through the evidence adduced during the trial and the impugned
judgment.
3 For the sake of convenience and clarity, the respondent
shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the accused.'
4 The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial
court, in brief, may be stated thus :
One Gopinath Sankpal and his wife were accused in a
case in respect of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. The
mother of the said Gopinath – Smt.Laxmibai – had committed
suicide and Gopinath and his wife were alleged to have abetted
the commission of suicide by Smt.Laxmibai. After investigation, a
chargesheet was filed against Gopinath and and his wife in
respect of the aforesaid offence in the court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ichalkaranji. The date for appearance before the
Magistrate, was given as 22nd July 1993, on which date, the said
Gopinath (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) appeared
before the Magistrate and furnished bail bonds. However, the
wife of complainant was unable to remain present before the
Magistrate on that date, and had sought exemption from personal
appearance for the day, which was granted. The next date before
the Magistrate was 2nd September 1993. The complainant,
apparently, had engaged two advocates and one of the advocates
wanted him to get the copies of the police papers and
accompanying documents before 2nd September 1993. The
complainant, therefore, went to the Police station and asked for
the copies of the chargesheet, but was informed that copies were
already sent to the court of the Magistrate. On 1st September
1993 i.e. the day prior to the date on which the matter was fixed
before the Magistrate, the complainant went to the Magistrate's
court. The accused was working there as a Clerk. He was looking
after the criminal table, and apparently, was responsible for
getting the copies of the chargesheet from the police and for
supplying the same to the accused persons. The complainant
demanded the copies of the police papers from the accused. The
accused told him that he would have to give Rs.65/ therefor. The
accused, allegedly, further said, that unless this amount was paid,
he would not deliver the copies of the police papers to him. The
complainant said that he would pay the amount on the next date,
but actually went to the office of AntiCorruption Bureau (ACB)
Kolhapur, and lodged a complaint against the accused. The
complaint was recorded. A trap was arranged on 2nd September
1993 and the panchas were called. An amount of Rs.65/ was
obtained from the complainant. Anthracene powder was applied
to the same. The properties of anthracene powder were explained
to the complainant and the panchas. The numbers of the currency
notes were noted in the panchnama. The police party and the
panchas then left for the court of Magistrate, and reached there at
about 1.40 p.m. The case, in which the complainant and his wife
were accused, was called out before the Magistrate and was
adjourned. Thereafter, the complainant went to the accused and
demanded the copy of the police papers. The accused asked him
whether the complainant had brought the amount and the
complainant told him that he had brought the amount of Rs.65/.
The accused, then, told the complainant that he needed Rs.69/.
The complainant thereupon told that he had only an amount of
Rs.65/ with him, and that, he would pay the amount of Rs.4/ on
the next date. Thereafter, the complainant handed over Rs.65/ to
the accused, and the accused accepted it. After the predecided
signal was given, the accused was apprehended.
5 The prosecution examined seven witnesses during the
trial. The first witness is the complainant himself. The second
witness Krishnaji Natekar is a panch, who had accompanied the
complainant, as per the trap laid. The third witness – Sanjay
Tukaram Bote and the fourth witness – Krishant Bhiku Saloke –
are the employees working in the court of Magistrate at the
material time. They have been examined only to show that the
accused was concerned with the work of getting the police
papers / chargesheets of various cases coming to the Magistrate
for supplying to the accused persons in those cases. The fifth
witness Malgonda Patil is a Head Constable attached to Hupri
Police Station, who had filed the chargesheet in the case against
the complainant and his wife. The sixth witness Chhagansing
Bais, District Judge, is the Sanctioning Authority. He had granted
sanction to prosecute against the accused, as required under
Section 19 of the P.C.Act. The seventh witness – Sadashiv Chavan
– is the Investigating Officer, who had laid the trap.
6 The defence of the accused, as taken by him before the
trial court by filing a written statement, was that, that the
complainant had approached him by saying that he wanted copies
of the police report and chargesheet, and that, money was
handed over by the complainant to the accused for passing it on to
the clerk of his advocate for getting the copy of the chargesheet
xeroxed. According to the accused, since the complainant had
said that it consisted of 65 pages, the amount that would be
required for xeroxing the same, was estimated to be Rs.65/, and
it is thus that the figure was arrived at. It is also the case of the
accused that when the complainant actually came for getting the
copies on the next day, it was found that it consisted of 69 pages,
and therefore, the accused had demanded four rupees more.
7 The learned Judge found the defence of the accused
plausible.
8 Indeed, there are a number of suspicious features in
the prosecution case.
9 In the first place, the complainant, being an accused in
the case, was entitled to get a copy of the chargesheet free of
charge and as a matter of right. It was the responsibility of the
Magistrate to see that the copy was supplied. It would be difficult
to imagine that the complainant, who had engaged two advocates
to defend him, would think of paying any bribe for obtaining the
copy of the chargesheet, when he was anyway going to get it.
This is particularly so, because, according to the complainant, he
had gone to the accused for demanding the copy, just a day prior
to the date, on which he had to appear before the Magistrate. The
accused could very well have got the copies on the next date. The
case of the complainant was that, his advocate wanted the copy
urgently on the previous date itself, but, the advocate has not been
examined as a witness to show that why he could not wait for
another day. Moreover, the copies were actually obtained only on
the next day, i.e., on 2nd September 1993, when the matter was on
the board of the Magistrate and when the complainant was
anyway required to remain present before the Magistrate.
10 Considering that the complainant had engaged two
advocates, it was easy for him to bring the matter of the demand
of bribe by the accused to the notice of the advocate, but the
complainant did not do so.
11 The case in which the complainant was an accused
was called out on 2nd September 1993, before the complainant
paid the money to the accused. Why the complainant, at that time,
did not request to the Magistrate for a copy, is not clear.
12 It also appears that after receiving the amount of
Rs.65/, the accused demanded four more rupees. There is
substance in the contention advanced by Mr.Mundargi, the
learned counsel for the accused, that the very demand of such odd
figure indicates that the money that was being demanded, was
towards the copying charges.
13 The learned Special Judge in his judgment considered
all the aspects of the matter carefully. Among other things, he also
noted that the complainant apparently had not disclosed the fact
of his having approached the ACB when the matter appeared
before the Magistrate on 2nd September 1993.
14 The learned Special Judge also noted that on 2nd
September 1993 the matter had been called out before the
Magistrate and effective work was done. It appears that a surety
was offered for the wife of the complainant and the bail bonds
were executed. The tainted amount was allegedly paid by the
complainant to the accused at about 5.55 p.m., i.e., after the court
hours.
15 Considering all the aspects of the matter, the learned
Special Judge doubted whether the complainant genuinely
wanted copies of the chargesheet – which he was anyway to get,
or whether he just wanted to trap the accused, for reasons known
to him.
16 In my opinion, the appreciation of evidence, as done
by the learned Special Judge, and the conclusion arrived at by
him, does not suffer from any infirmity, error or illegality.
17 There is one more aspect of the matter, which is of
considerable importance. In this case, the trap was laid and the
raid was effected in the court premises itself. It was arranged
during the working hours of court. No permission appears to have
been obtained from the High court or the Judge incharge of the
Judicial Administration of the District, before laying such a trap.
If the investigating agencies are permitted to lay traps in the court
premises, on working days and during the working hours, it would
not be conducive to the administration of justice. The staff
attached to a Judge discharges duties under the instructions of the
Presiding Officer. If the Police Officers, whose subordination to the
Judicial Magistrate is evident from the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and who frequently visit the courts for
obtaining remand or as witnesses, are allowed to raid the court
premises without permission of the Presiding Officer of the court
or the Principal District Judge, or the High court, there is every
possibility of a serious threat to the administration of justice and
the independence of judiciary, being posed. A similar view was
taken by the Allahabad High Court in Surendra Sahai and Others
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1997 Cri.L.J.1670. In my
opinion, therefore, it was absolutely improper on the part of the
investigating agency to have laid a trap without seeking the
previous permission of the Judge incharge of the Judicial
Administration of the District or the High court and without
seeking permission to lay such a trap. Incidentally, it may be
observed that, the trap was laid without verification of the
demand.
18 The order of the acquittal of the accused, as passed by
the Special Judge, is proper and legal.
19 The Appeal is dismissed.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment