IPS Officer Bribery Case Judgement AK Jain

JUDGEMENT1ACBSPL.CASENO.
46/2001
Exh.107
INTHECOURTOFTHESPECIALJUDGEFORGREATERBOMBAY.
ACBSPECIALCASENo.46of2001
TheStateofMaharashtra
(AntiCorruptionBureau,B.M.U.
C.R.No.23/2000) ...Complainant.
V/s.
1.ShriAjaykumarGyanchandJain
Age:59years.Occ.:IPSofficer
[Presentlyundersuspension]
ResidingatA/3,MawalFlats,
MoledineRoad,Camp,Pune411001.
2.ShriPrasannaChampalalLodha
Age:55years,Occ.:CharteredAccountant.
ResidingatFlatNo.805,AshokTower/B,
Dr.BabasahebAmbedkarRoad,Parel(East),
Mumbai400042. ...Accused
Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorSmt.KalpanaChavan,forACB.
Ld.AdvocateShriShinganapurkar,foraccusedNo.1
JUDGEMENT2ACBSPL.CASENO.46/2001
Ld.AdvocateShriJambhavlikar,foraccusedNo.2.
Coram:HERHONOURTHESPECIALJUDGE SMT.S.K.KEOLE
[C.R.No.45]
Dated:10
th
April,2013.
{Offencespunishableu/s.7,8,9,10,12,13(1)(d)r/w.13(2)of
PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988andu/s109,120Band201
ofIndianPenalCode,1860}
JUDGEMENT
(PronouncedinOpenCourt)
1] Accused No.1 Shri Ajaykumar Gyanchand Jain who
wasIPSOfficer,andwasAdditionalCommissionerofPolice,Central
Region, Mumbai in the year 2000 has been chargesheeted for the
offence u/s. 7,10, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988andr/w.Sec.109,120B,201ofIndianPenalCode,1860
andaccusedNo.2 PrasannaChampalalLodha whowasChartered
Accountant of accused No.1 has also been chargesheeted for the
offenceu/s.8,9,12ofPreventionofCorruptionActalongwithSec.109,
120BofI.P.C(Hereinafterwillbereferredtoas'P.C.Act'and'I.P.C.')on
thecomplaintlodgedbyPoliceInspector,Shri SanjeevBhagwanrao
Kokil, attached to Byculla police station at the relevant time. The
offencewasregisteredasC.R.No.23/2000,byAntiCorruptionBureau.
2] Thefactsoftheprosecutioncase:
Thecomplainant,PoliceInspector,ShriKokil,intheyear
2000wasattachedtoBycullaPoliceStation.Hewasonnightdutyat
BycullaPoliceStationontheinterveningnightof21
st
and22
nd
May
2000.Onthesamenight,DCPShriDate,whowasonnightround,at
about02.00hoursfoundthat'SairajBarandRestaurant',withinthe
jurisdictionofBycullaPoliceStation,wasopenafterstipulatedtime.
Hence,hecalledthesaidcomplainantPISanjivKokilandaskedhim
todraw a panchanamatothat effectand submit a report tosenior
officers. Accordingly, a reportto that effectwas submitted by the
complainant.
On22.05.2000atabout18.00hoursorso,DCP,ZoneIII
ShriAmiteshKumarsubmittedadefaultreport(Exh.56)personallyin
theofficeoftheaccusedno.1ShriJain,AdditionalCommissionerof
Police,oftheregion,againstPSIGiri,PIKokilandSr.P.I.Mohiteinthe
matterofnonclosureof'SairajBarandRestaurant' withinstipulated
time.AccusedNo.2Shri.Lodhawaspresentintheofficeofaccused
no.1ShriJainatthematerialtime.
On 23.05.2000, at about 08.00 hours, the accused No.2
contactedthesaidcomplainantontelephoneathisresidence. After
introducing himself as the 'Chartered Accountant' of Shri A.K. Jain,
AdditionalCommissionerofPolice,CentralRegion,heinformedhim
thathewastobesuspendedinconnectionwiththenonclosureof
'SairajBarandRestaurant',andfurtheraskedthecomplainanttosee
himimmediately,oppositeMahimPoliceStation.
The complainant reached near Mahim Police Station at
about 09.00 hours and found the accused No.2 was waiting in a
MarutiCar,thedescriptionofwhichwasinformedontelephone.The
accused No.2 took the complainant in his car and after driving for
about8to10minutes,enteredintoabylane.TheaccusedNo.2then
told the complainant that he was sent by the accused No.1, Shri
A.K.Jain, and further told the complainant that accused No.1, Shri
Jainhasdecidedtosuspendhimfortheallegeddefaultof'SairajBar
&Restaurant'. Hethenstatedthataccusedno.1Shri A.KJain,has
demanded Rs.5,00,000/ in order to avoid his suspension. On
negotiations, the accused No.2 Shri. Lodha, agreed to accept Rs.
3,00,000/asthefirstinstallmentforandonbehalfofaccusedNo.1
Shri Jain, and Rs.10,000/ for himself as his 'Mehanatana
'(Remuneration)tobepaidby17.00hoursonthesameday.Inorder
topasstime,thecomplainantagreedtopaythesame.accusedNo.2
immediatelydialedanumberfromhiscellphoneandsaid =+ n|r4
= =|| 4|= r| r. +|= r| +| r. +|a 4= + +n| | =|+| .Theaccused
No.2 wrotehisnameandtelephonenumbersonapaperofasmall
pocket diary and after handing over the said paper to the
complainant, asked him to contact him, the moment the money is
ready.
On 23.05.2000, at about 16.30 hours, the said
complainant connected his residential phone to a recorder and
contactedaccusedNo.2onhiscellphone.TheaccusedNo.2reiterated
the demand and informed the complainant that his suspension has
been kept in abeyance. The complainant asked for further time to
collect the bribe amount. This conversation was recorded by the
complainant(ThetranscriptoftheconversationpreparedatExh.37).
On 24
th
and 25 th May,2000,
the said complainant

collected the amount from his friends and relatives in Mumbai,
outside Mumbai and on 26/05/2000 he visited the office of Anti
CorruptionBureauandlodgedhiscomplaintasabove.Thesamewas
registeredvideC.R.No.23/2000u/s.8ofthePreventionofCorruption
Act,1988,againstaccusedNo.2Lodha(Exh.35).
3] After the completion of pre trap panchanama, (Exh.47)
thecomplainantShriKokil,wasinstructedtogotohisresidenceand
contactaccusedNo.2,onhiscellphonebearingnumber9820130698
andconfirmedtheplacewherethemoneywastobedelivered,aswas
toldtohimbyaccusedNo.2.ThedemonstrationofTaperecorderwas
shownanditsoperationwasexplainedtocomplainantShriKokil.
4] Thereafter,theraidingpartyalongwiththecomplainant,
independent pancha witnesses S/Shri Medhe and Shri. Kandhare
wenttothehouseofcomplainant,atPoliceOfficer'sQuarters,Ground
floor, Opp. Agripada Police Station, Mumbai. The residential
telephoneofthesaidcomplainantinthepresenceofthepanchaswas
connected to a cassette tape recorder. At about 13.30 hrs. the
complainant contacted Accused no.2, on his cell phone. The
conversationthattookplacebetweenShriKokil,andaccusedNo.2,it
was recorded on the said cassette. Thereafter at 13.40 hrs, the
accused No.2 called on the said complainant's residential telephone
number. The said conversation was also recorded. During this
conversation, the accused No.2, called the complainant (Shri Kokil)
alongwiththemoney,nearMahimPolice Station. (The transcript of
the said conversation is at Exh.40). Thereafter they all proceeded
towardstheplacewhereaccusedNo.2,calledthecomplainant.
5] The police vehicles were halted near Mayor's Bunglow,
Shivaji Park. Thereafter, the members of the raiding party, the
complainant and the panch witnesses proceeded towards Mahim
PoliceStationintwotaxisandapolicejeep.thevehicleswerehalted
near Traffic Police Chowky, at the junction of L.J. Road and S.V.S.
Road,Mahim.
6] At about 14.45 hours, a white colour Maruti 800 Motor
Car bearing No.MP24G1747 was noticed as parked opposite the
officers' quarters,nearMahimPoliceStationfacingtowardsBandra.
As instructed, the complainant and pancha witness Shri Medhe
contactedaccused No.2, who was sittingin thesaidcaronthe left
rear side and his driver on the steering wheel. After preliminary
conversationbetween the complainant and the accused No.2 in the
presenceofpanchShriMedhe,theaccusedNo.2tookthecomplainant
andthepanchShriMedheintothesaidcarandproceededtowards
Bandra. Thecomplainantsatinthecarontherearseatonleftside
neartheaccusedNo.2whilepanchShriMedhesatonthefrontleft
sidenearthedriver. ThepanchwitnessNo.2andraidingpartythen
followedthesaidcar.Whilethesaidcomplainant,panchShriMedhe
andtheaccusedNo.2,weretravellingintheMarutiCar,theaccused
No.2, enquired about and demanded the bribe amount. Thereafter
knowingthatthesaidcomplainanthadcomewiththebribeamount
theaccusedNo.2,dialedanumberfromhiscellphoneandaskedone
ShriSayyed,toconnectthecallto'Saaheb'. Whenthecallwasput
through,theaccusedNo.2,informedthepersonattheotherendthat
the complainant had come with 3 kg of 'Sweets', the complainant
interfere and say he had brought only 2 Kg. instead of 3 kg. The
accused No.2 then accepted the cash of Rs.2,10,000/. He then
separatedcashofRs.10,000/fromtheamountofRs.2,00,000/,put
Rs.2,00,000/inthepolythenebaginwhichthecashwasbroughtby
thecomplainant.TheaccusedNo.2keptRs.10,000/ underhisright
thigh.Onreceivingpredeterminedsignalfromthesaidcomplainant,
the accused No.2, was intercepted near 'Kondor Furnitures',
Bandra(W),Mumbai.HewasdetainedinthecarandtakentoBandra
PoliceStation.
7] During post trap procedure on examination, both the
hands,face,neck,theentirefrontportionoftheshirt(Article9)and
pant(article10)andthenapkin(article8)carriedbytheaccusedNo.
2, were seen emitting bluish glow confirming the presence of
anthracenepowder(encircledportiononarticle8markedasarticle
15,encircleportiononarticle9markedasarticle16collectively.The
encircle portion on article 10 marked as article 17 ) Which was
transferred from the smearer currency note. The marked money,
(Article 6) the shirt, pant, napkin andthe cell phone (Article 5) of
accused No.2 have been taken charge of under panchanama. The
conversation that took place in the Maruti Car between the
complainant and accused No.2, has been heard. The effect of
anthracinepowderwasalsonotedontherightsideofthebackseat
coverofthecar.Article11encirclepositiononit.Saidseatcoverwas
alsoseizedduringpanchanama.
8] AfterthecompletionofthePosttrappanchanama,(Exh.
48) The accused No.1 Shri A.K Jain was arrested on 28/06/2009.
During investigation the call detail report of Mobile number
9820130698,admittedlyinpossessionofaccusedno.2wereobtained
fromconcernmobilecompany(Exh84,admittedbybothaccused).
TheLocationofthesaidmobilenumberwasalsoobtained(Exh.105,
Admittedbybothaccused)Thespecimenhandwritingoftheaccused
no. 1 was obtained (Exh.98) the said specimen hand writing with
papers(Exh.97)forwardedtothehandwritingexpert.Thereportwas
receivedfromtheHandwritingexpert(Exh.89and90)Thestatement
of witnesses were recorded. After completing the
investigation,chargesheetwas filedagainst theaccusedno. 1, after
obtaining necessary sanction(Exh. 26 and schedule at Exh.28) and
alsoagainstaccusedno.2.
9] My Ld. Predecessor framed the charge at Exh.8 against
accused. Thefirstchargeisshowingthatchargeu/s.8,9(Wrongly
mentionedas8ofPreventionofCorruptionAct),10 areframedin
thealternative.TheirpleawasrecordedatExh.9and10respectively.
Accusedpleadednotguilty,therefore,trialhascommence.
10] In order to establish the offence levelled against the
accused,prosecutioninallhaveexamined20witnesses.
P.W.1,atExh.19 Shri Atanu Purkayastha Sanctioning
Authority,
P.W.2,atExh.30 Shri Sadanand Vasant Date, on the
point of incidence of 'Sairaj Bar and
Restaurant'
P.W.3,atExh.33 ShriSanjivBhagwanraoKokil,Complainant
P.W.4,atExh.46 ShriKishoreRamdasMedhe,PanchWitness
No.1
P.W.5,atExh.51 ShriAmiteshKumar,onthepointofdefault
report.
P.W.6,atExh.57 ShriPradeepDakornathShroffonthepoint
ofdefaultreport.
P.W.7,atExh.59 ShriChandanShankarraoShinde, Orderly
ofaccusedNo.1
P.W.8,atExh.63 ShriRajendraBhikajiJalgaonkar,Panch,
P.W.9,atExh.64 ShriSayedVahouddinAther,P.A.ofAccused
No.1,
P.W.10,atExh.68 ShriAkbarMohd.HanifJamadarMuslim,
workingintheofficeofaccusedno.1.
P.W.11,atExh.69 Shri Sanket Dattatray Yadav, Orderly/Boy
Constableofaccusedno.1,
P.W.12,atExh.71 Shri Subhash Shankar Ubale, Orderly/Boy
Constable,attachedtoofficeofaccusedno.1
P.W.13,atExh.75 ShriSureshArjunParab,attachedtoByculla
PoliceStation
P.W.14,atExh.76 ShriArvindRengurudKittur,RadioMechanic
P.W.15atExh.77 Shri Sachin K. Kondilkar (Krishna),
employeeofmobilecompanyonthepointof
CallDetailsReporter,
P.W.16,atExh.80 Shri GovindSinghKandari,onthepointof
CallDetailsRecord.
P.W.17,atExh.85 Shri Deepak Manohar Wagle, Handwriting
expert.
P.W.18,atExh.92 Shri Rajesh Sazu Bandodkar, Engineer of
MobileCompany
P.W.19,atExh.93 Shri Arun Vittalrao Wable, Investigating
Officer,
P.W.20,atExh.94 Shri.MadhukarTukaramKohe,Investigating
Officer,
11] After recording the evidence, statement of both the
accusedwererecordedseparatelyu/s.313ofCr.P.C.atExh.100 and
Exh.102respectively.Theaccusedsubmittedtheirwrittenstatements
atExh.101andExh.103respectively.
12] Thecrossexaminationandwrittenstatementsubmittedby
accused No.1, is showing his probable defence, that he has been
falsely implicated in the instant case. He never demanded and
accepted bribe amount from the complainant at any point of time,
throughaccusedNo.2.ProbabledefenceofaccusedNo.2isthatthat
toimplicatefalselyaccusedNo.1.,hehasbeenusedasinstrument,he
has been falsely involved in this case. He never demanded or
accepted by amount from complainant for accused no.1 , and for
himself.
13] Heard Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. Kalpana
ChavanforState,Ld.Advocate,ShriShinganapurkarforaccusedNo.1
andLd.AdvocateShriJambhavlikarforaccusedNo.2.
14] After considering the oral as well as documentary
evidence, available on record following points are raised for my
consideration.
POINTSFINDINGS
1]Whetheritisprovedbytheprosecutionthat
sanction order granted for prosecuting the
presentaccusedNo.1islegalandvalid?
accused No.1 and 2 hatched the criminal
conspiracyon22/05/2000,toextractthebribe
amountofRs.5lacs,throughtheaccusedNo.2,
Intheaffirmative.
from complainant Police Inspector Sanjiv
Bhagwanrao Kokil, attached to Byculla police
station, for not suspending him in connection
withincidenceofSairajbar.Furtherinviewof
the said conspiracy, on23/05/2013, in the by
lane near Mahim Police Station, Mumbai, at
about9.00a.m.Accusedno.2demandedbribe
amountofRs.5,00,000/fromcomplainantfor
showing favor of not suspending him in
connectionwiththeincidentof'SairajBarand
Restaurant' occurred in the night between
21/05/2000to22/05/2000.
AND
Further, Whether it is further proved by the
prosecutionthataccusedNo.2onthesameday
inthemorning,inhiscarafternegotiations,
agreed to accept a sum of Rs.3 lacs as a first
installment for accused No.1 and Rs.10,000/
forhimselfasMehentanaonthesamedayI.e.
23/05/2000, at 17.00 hrs., from the
complainant above name for the reason
mentionedabove?
on 26/05/2000, complainant calledon mobile
ofaccusedNo.2andhadconversationwithhim,
thenaccusedNo.2calledonlandlinenumberof
complainant and called the complainant near
Mahim Police Station, with bribe amount on
thesameday.Furtherduringthetimeof14.45
hoursto15.05hours,atBandraareaincarof
accused No.2, accused No.2 demanded and
accepted bribe amount of Rs.2,00,000/ from
complainantforaccusedNo.1andRs.10,000/
for himself for showing favour in case of
incidenceofSairajBar,tothecomplainant?
accusedNo.1hadacceptedthesaidamountof
Rs.2 lacs through accused No.2 and obtained
pecuniaryadvantageillegallyforhimselfby
Intheaffirmative.
misusing his official position, as Govt. servant
for showing favour of not suspending the
complainant? Intheaffirmative
on27/05/2000,atabout3.30p.m.theaccused
No.1haddirectedChandanShinde,toburnall
the papers in the waste paper basket and on
29/05/2000,heremovedthepageinthenote
sheetbearingParaNo.10,foldedthesameand
entered in Anti chamber with said papers of
folded note sheet and matchbox, when
returned,thesaidpaperwasnotwithhimand
thereby,triedtodestroytheevidence?
accusedNo.2bydemandingandacceptingRs.2
lacs for accused No.1 and Rs. 10,000/ for
himself, aided and abetted the commission of
theoffenceofbribeacceptance?
Intheaffirmative.
Intheaffirmative
withPointNo.3
accusedNo.2byacceptingthebribe amountof
Rs.2lacsinordertoinfluencetheaccusedno.1,
forshowingfavortothecomplainantincaseof
'SairajBarandRestaurant'?
Asperfinalorder
8]Whetheritisprovedbyprosecutionthatthe
accused no. 1 abetted the accused no.2 for
demanding and accepting bribe amount from
complainantforthereasonmentionedabove?
Asperfinalorder
9]Whatorder? Asperfinalorder
REASONS
AstoPointNo.1:
WHETHERSANCTIONGRANTEDFORPROSECUTING
ACCUSEDNO.1ISLEGALANDVALID
15] Valid sanction is the 'Sinequanon' in the cases under
PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988.InviewofSec.19oftheAct,the
Courtcannottakethecognizanceoftheoffencepunishableu/s.7,10,
11,13,15, alleged to have been committed by the Public Servant
exceptwiththeprevioussanctionbythecompetentauthority.
16] In this matter, P.W.1 has examine by the prosecution at
Exh.19toprovethatthesanctionislegalandvalid.Inhisevidence,
thiswitnessdeposedthatintheyear2001,hewaspostedas'Director
of Police' in Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. As the
Director, he was assigned with the work of entire matters of
Establishment of IPS officers posted throughout India. According to
him,EstablishmentofPSIofficersincludes,appointment,removaland
conductetc.TheaccusedNo.1whowasIPSofficerof1982batchat
therelevanttimewaspostedasAdditionalCommissionerofPolice'in
Mumbai,forBycullaDivision.
17] As deposed by this witness, as per the procedure, the
State Government is required to move the Government of India for
gettingsanctiontoprosecuteIPSofficerlikeaccusedNo.1.
18] Inhisevidence,thiswitnessdeposedthathowthepapers
werereceivedfromGovernmentofMaharashtraandhowthepapers
were examined by the various officers of department including
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). According to this witness,
Ministry of Home Affairs, is the competent authority to grant
sanction. This witness deposed that he prepared the draft sanction
orderandforwardedthesamewithfileofpapersofinvestigationto
superior officer, to Joint Secretary Police, then to Special Secretary
(InternalSecurityandPolice),thentoHomeSecretaryandafterthat
filewasplacedbeforetheCentralVigilanceCommission.Theadviseof
CentralVigilanceCommissionwasalsocalledforandonreceivingthe
advice from Central Vigilance Commission, he again move the file
throughJointSecretary,SpecialSecretary,HomeSecretarytoHome
Minister for the approval. The approval was granted through the
samechannel. Thereafter, he issued sanction order. In hisevidence,
heprovedthedocumentssuchasrequisitionletteratExh.20. Inhis
evidencehealsodeposedthatduetomistakeofStateGovernment,
thesaidrequisitionletterhadsenttotheDepartmentofPersonneland
Trainingandfromthere,theletterwassenttothiswitness.Healso
producedtheletteratExh.21sentbythesaiddepartmenttohimand
there is endorsement of his office on it. He also pointed out the
endorsementonthesaidrequisitionletteratExh.23.
19] According to this witness, he went through the entire
record and made his comment in writing and then placed the file
beforetheJointSecretary,JointSecretaryalsoexaminedthepapers
andmadehiscommentinwriting.HepointedoutthesignatureofMr.
O.P.AryaatExh.23.ThisfilewasputupbeforetheSpecialSecretary
which was approved vide Exh.23. The file was referred to Joint
Secretary and he was asked to take advise of Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC). The officer of Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC) have also gone through the papers and opined on it. This
witness furtherdeposedthatthedraftsanctionorderwasprepared
onthebasisofrecord.Hepreparedhisowndraft.Thesaiddraftwas
placed before the Joint Secretary, and he approved the draft and
thereafter,hesignedthesame.
20] Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedtoshowthattherewas
nonapplicationofmindandthatheisnotthecompetentauthority.In
hiscrossexamination,headmittedthatHon'bleHomeMinister,gives
theapprovalinthenameofHonourablePresident.Thiswitnesswas
also cross examined on the facts of trap case by Ld. Advocate for
accusedNo.1speciallyonthefactsmentionedinscheduleatExh.28
(internalPageNo.4lastlineinParagraphNo.7,PageNo.6middle
portion,PageNo.7OpeninglineofParagraphNo.11,PageNo.8
ParagraphNo.13).
21] The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the
evidenceonrecordisshowingthatthepapersofinvestigationwere
verifiedbythevariousofficers,thoseofficersalsoappliedtheirmind
andendorsedthesame.Accordingtoher,itisnotthemindofonlyan
individualbutmostoftheofficershadappliedmindwhileaccording
thesanction.
22] Theld.AdvocateofaccusedNo.1submittedthatthecross
examinationofthewitnessisshowingthatthereisnoapplicationof
mindandheisnot thecompetent authority. He tried to point out
fromthecrossexaminationthatthewitnesswasnotawareaboutthe
facts of the case. He invited my attention to the questions and
answers given by witness (P.W.1/10) that whether there is any
documenttoshowthatthatdemandwasmadebyaccusedNo.1,the
answergivenbythiswitnessis
Aspertherecord,therewastelephonicconversation,
whichwasrecordedandtherewerestatementsofwitnesseslike
PoliceOfficers.
23] Hefurthernarratedthatonlyonthebasisofmemory,heis
tellingthis,asitisveryoldincident.
24] The Ld. advocate for accused No.2 submitted that the
sanction is illegal as by order dated 7.6.2002 the then Presiding
Officer of this Court return the chargesheet for want of proper
sanction. ThesaidorderwaschallengedbeforetheHonorableHigh
Courtandthesaidorderisstillinexistenceasitisnotsetasidebythe
HonorableHighCourt. Accordingtohim,thisfindingsaregivenby
My Ld. Predecessor are still exists, therefore, the sanction order
cannotbesaidaslegalandvalid.
25] The Examination in Chief and the cross examination of
thiswitnessconductedonbehalfofaccusedNo.1,inmyview,isnot
showing non application of mind. On the other hand, exhibited
documentsareclearlyindicatingthenotingsmadebyvariousofficers
aftergoingthroughthepapersofinvestigation.TheevidenceofP.W.1
cannot be discarded only on the ground that he admitted that
scheduleannexedwiththeSanctionOrderatExh.28waspreparedby
his staff. Sanctioning authority P.W.1's evidence and cross
examination is also not showing that he is not competent to grant
sanction.
26] While considering the evidence of the witness, P.W.1 it
shouldbebearinmindthattheincidenthadoccurredpriortoabout9
years,ofhisrecordingevidence.Therefore,minordiscrepanciesin
hisevidenceneedstobeignoredassuchdiscrepanciescouldappear
onlyduetolapseoftime.Answersgivenbyhimincrossexamination
are showing a natural conduct of a prudent man, while deposing
regardingtheorderpassedbyhim,priorto9years.
27] Itisthewellsettledoflawthatthesanctionordercanbe
challenged on the two grounds, one is the competency of the
sanctioningauthorityandanotheristhenonapplicationofmindby
thesanctioningauthority.
28] Perusedthe documentsproducedatExh.22and23.The
Examinationinchiefofthewitnessisclearlyshowingthathowthe
papers of investigation were gone through by the officers and
recommendationsweremadebythem,Exh.22,23and24areclearly
showingthatthepapersofinvestigationwereverifiedbythepresent
witness and also by the other officers who had recommended the
grantofsanctionforprosecutingtheaccusedno.1Thefindingsgiven
intheaboveexhibitsarealsoreflectingthat thereisapplicationof
mind by the other officers. Though in the cross examination, it is
suggestedtothiswitnessthatheisnotthecompetentauthorityand
had not gone through the entire papers of investigation, but such
suggestionhasbeendeniedbythewitness.
29] The evidence of witness is not showing the non
application of mind. The documentary evidence filed on record at
Exh.21toExh.28areclearlyshowingthatbeforegrantingsanction,
papers of investigation were verified at various stages by various
departments and there was application of mind by the officers
includingPW1. Therefore,theargumentmadebytheLd.Advocate
foraccusedNo.1,thatthereisnoapplicationofmindandsanctioning
authorityisnotthecompetentauthoritycannotbeaccepted.
30] SofarastheargumentsmadeonbehalfofaccusedNo.2is
concerned,thefollowingorderpassedbytheHonorableHighCourtat
Page3(reproducedbelow)willmakethepositionclear.
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 fairly accepts on
instructions that the basis on which the Special Judge has
proceededtoholdthatthesanctionorderalreadygrantedisbadin
lawcouldbetestedonlyattheendofthetrial.
Accordingly,the impugnedjudgmentandorderis
setasideandthetrialcourtisdirectedtoproceedwiththe
trial in accordance with law. All questions relating to the
validityofthesanctionorderinquestionareleftopen.Thetrial
courtshallpronounceuponthesameonthebasisoftheevidence
onrecordletinbythepartiesonthemattersrelevanttodecidethe
validityofthesanctionorder.
31] Inthesaidorderdated15/12/2004,atPageNo.3,Further,
itisdirectedbytheHonorableHighCourttoproceedwiththetrialin
accordancewithlaw.
32] It wasaccepted bytheLd.Adv. foraccused No.1before
theHon'bleHighCourt,thatthequestionofsanctionorderwaskept
open and will be decided at the end of trial. It also needs to be
consider that, at the time of passing of order dated 07/06/2002,
evidence of sanctioning authority was not recorded which is now
recorded. In viewofthefurther directions givenbytheHonorable
High Court, it is necessary to give fresh findings on the issue of
sanctionorder,whichIhavegivenabove. Therefore,thearguments
madebytheLd.AdvocateforaccuseNo.2thatifthesanctionorderis
illegal,thenentirecasecannotproceedfurther,evenagainstaccused
No.2,cannotbeaccepted.TheLd.Advocateforaccusedno.2failedto
noticethattheHon'bleHighCourthassetasidetheorderpassedby
myld.Predecessor.
33] As discussed above, the evidence of PW 1 and the
documentsproducedatExh.20toExh.28areclearlyshowingthatthe
present witness was the competent authority to grant the sanction
orderandalsoappliedhismind.
34] Further Exh.25 (Page 19) is clearly showing the noting
that the matter was consulted with Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC) who approved and then Honorable Home Minister, also
approved the sanction for prosecuting the present accused No.1.
Therefore, the order of sanction issued under the head of
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home
Affairs/GrihMantralaya producedatExh.26cannotbesaidasthe
orderissuedbytheincompetentauthority.Thescheduleattachedto
this order at Exh.28 is also showing the details of the incident
occurred and that the papers of investigation had carefully gone
through by the PW 1. Therefore, there is no significace to the
admissiongivenbyP.W.1thatscheduleatExh.28waspreparedbyhis
staff.
35] TheLd.PublicProsecutorplacedrelianceonthejudgment
reportedin(2004)4SCC615incaseof
State(A.C.B.)Govt.ofNCTofDelhiandanother
V/s.
Dr.R.C.Anandandothers,
as it has suggested to the Sanctioning Authority that Whether
cassettesorCD'sinrespectofconversationweresuppliedtohimor
not.
36] Inthejudgmentmentionedaforesaid,itisobservedbythe
HonorableApexCourtthat
SanctioningAuthorityhasonlytoseewhetherthe
factsstatedinthecomplaintprimafaciedisclosed
thecommissionofanoffenceornotandfurther,the
actualproductionofthetapes,etc.aremattersfor
proofduringtrial.Onfacts,sanctionorderheldwas
valid.
In view of this judgment the objection raised by ld. Advocate for
accused no. 1, that cassettes were not forwarded to Sanctioning
authority,cannotsustained.
37] The Ld. Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on
Judgmentreported in, 2007ALLMR(Cri)441incaseofRajendra
TatobaMagdumV/s.StateofMaharashtra,whereinitisobserved
bytheHonorableLordshipofBombayHighCourtthat,
Theissueofsanctionshouldnotbeputonsucha
pedestal as would make it impossible for the
prosecution and the Court to prosecute a public
servant.Theobjectandpurposeofgrantofsanction
andprotectionandimmunitycontemplatedthereby
doesnotmeanthattechnicalandtrivialobjections
to the legality and validity of the same must be
entertained.Thesanctionordercannotbesaidtobe
vitiatedmerelybecause,itistermedasIrregular.
38] The objections raised by the Ld. Advocate appearing on
behalfofaccusedNo.1,inmyviewisnotsustainable,inviewofthe
provisions of Sec.19(3) of PC Act 1988, and Explanation to this
section,whichisreproducedbelow,
Sec.19(3)Previoussanctionnecessaryforprosecution
(1)....
(2)...
(3)...
Explanation:Forthepurposesofthissection
(a) error includescompetencyoftheauthorityto grant
sanction;
39] ThesanctionorderandtheevidenceofP.W.1alsoneedsto
betrusted,InviewoftheprovisionofSec.114(e)ofIndianEvidence
Act,1872,whichisreproducedbelow,
114.Courtmaypresumetheexistenceofanyfactwhichit
thinkslikelytohavehappened,regardbeinghadtothecommoncourse
of natural events, human conduct and public and private
business, in their relation to the facts of the particular
case. (a)...
(b)...
(c)...
(d)...
(e)Thatjudicialandofficialactshavebeenregularly
performed;
40] In view of the above discussion and placing reliance on
theprincipleslaiddownbytheHonorableApexCourtandHonorable
Bombay High Court , in the judgments referred above. I have no
hesitationinholdingthatthesanctiongrantedbyP.W.1toprosecute
theaccusedNo.1islegalandvalid.Hence,IanswerthePointNo.1
intheaffirmative.
AstoPointNo.2
CRIMINALCONSPIRACYHATCHEDBYACCUSEDNO.1
AND2TOEXTRACTBRIBEAMOUNT
FROMCOMPLAINANT.
41] Itisthecaseofprosecutionthaton22/05/2000,accused
No.1and2hatchedcriminalconspiracytoextractthebribeamountof
Rs.5lakhsfromthecomplainantthroughaccusedNo.2inconnection
with the incidence of 'Sairaj Bar and Restaurant' occurred in the
interveningnightof21/05/2000to22/05/2000forshowingfavorof
notsuspendinghim.
42] TheCriminalConspiracy hasbeendefinedu/s.120Aof
IndianPenalCode,whichisreproducebelow.
120ADefinitionofcriminalconspiracy
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done1]anillegalact,or
2]anactwhichisnotillegalbyillegal
means,suchanagreementisdesignatedacriminalconspiracy;
Providedthatnoagreementexceptanagreementtocommit
an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless
some
actbesidestheagreementisdonebyoneormorepartiesto
suchagreementinpursuancethereof.
Explanation:Itisimmaterialwhethertheillegalactisthe
ultimateobjectofsuchagreement,orismerelyincidentalto
thatobject.
43] In order to prove the allegation of the conspiracy
hatchedbytheaccused,theprosecutionhaveexaminedPW.2,P.W.3,
PW.5,PW.6,PW.7,PW.12,PW.13. Theprosecutionalsoproducedon
recordCallDetailsReportofthemobileNo.9820130698whichwas
inthepossessionofaccusedNo.2,(Admitteddocuments)atExh.84,
44] In the evidence of P.W.2, it has been brought on record
thattheincidenceof'SairajBarandRestaurant' wasoccurredinthe
mid night, immediately P.W.2 who was Deputy Commissioner of
Police,ZoneIII,Mumbai,calledthecomplainant,nightdutyPIand
directedhimtopreparethereportaboutthenonclosureof'SairajBar
and Restaurant' within the stipulated time. One PSI Giri was found
standing in front of said Bar, still the bar was found in running
condition,whenP.W.2inspectedthebarfromtheentranceatbackside.
Accordingtothiswitness,onnextday,i.e.on22/05/2000,therewas
meeting in the office of Commissioner which was attended by
Additional Commissionerincludinghimandtheincidenceof'Sairaj
Bar and Restaurant' was discussed there. In the said meeting, he
suggested to take action against the erring officers and the
Commissioner agreed to it. The commissioner asked DCP, Zone III
(PW5)totakesanctionagainsttheerringofficers.Accordingtohim,
PSI Giri was erring officer, Senior Police Inspector and night duty
Police inspector ie. complainant were also responsible for such
incidence. It is not disputed that at that time, night PI was the
complainantandSr.P.I.wasoneShri.Mohite.
45] Inthecrossexaminationofthiswitness,nothingadverse
has been suggested to him. Therefore, the evidence of this witness
remainedunchallenged,whereinithasbeenbroughtonrecordbythe
prosecutionthatthecomplainantwasalsooneoftheerringofficerin
case of 'Sairaj Bar and Restaurant' and i.e. accused No.1 being
incharge was directed by the Commissioner to take action against
erringofficers.
46] Inordertofindout theevidencetoshowastowhether
Sec.120BofI.P.C.isattractedinthismatterornot. Iswitchoverto
theevidenceofPW.3complainant.
47] Accordingtothiswitness,duringtherelevantperiod,he
wasattachedtoBycullapoliceStationasPI.Atthattime,inchargeof
BycullaPoliceStationwasACPMr.WarkhadandinchargeofZoneIII
wasDCPShriAmiteshKumarandpresentaccusedNo.1wasincharge
ofCentralRegion.Thiswitnessalsonarratedabouttheincidenceof
'Sairaj Bar and Restaurant'. In his evidence,he narrated that on
23/05/2000, at about 8 a.m. when as usual, he was preparing for
attendinghisduty,atthattime, hereceivedonecallonhislandline
phoneNo.3075178,thepersonontheothersideintroducedhimas
LodhaaccusedNo.2andalsoinformedhimthatheisthe'Chartered
Accountant' of accused No.1, and further informed him that he is
foundguiltyinthematterof'SairajBarandRestaurant',occurredin
themidnightof21/05/2000and22/05/2000andalsothat,thereis
possibilityofhissuspension.Thesaidpersonattheotherendofthe
phone asked him to come immediately in front of Mahim Police
StationandalsoprovideddetailsofhisCarNumberandcolouretc.
Therefore, immediately complainant rushed there. He reached near
thatspotandnoticedthecarofsamedescription.Thecarofaccused
No.2,wasstandingfacingtowardstheMahimChurch.Bothofthem
introduced each other. The person sitting in the car introduced
himselfasLodha,CharteredAccountantofaccusedNo.1.Heoffered
theseattohiminthecar.Thevehiclewasrunninganditwasstopped
after 810 minutes in one galli. Again the present accused No.2
introducedhimselfandtoldhimthatinthematterof'Sairajbarand
restaurant'Complainant,PSIGiriandSr.P.I.ofBycullaPoliceStation
areheldguiltyforallowingthesaidbartorunevenafterstipulated
time.ItwasfurtherintimatedbyhimthataccusedNo.1haddecided
tosuspendhimi.e.complainant,outofthreeofficers. AccusedNo.2
further told him that accused No.1 had demanded Rs.5 lakhs from
him for not suspending him and for not taking action against him.
Further, accused No.2 also suggested him to pay Rs.3 lakhs as first
installment,at5O'clock,intheeveningonthesameday.Further,to
inspirehisconfidence,hestatedthenameofStenoSayyed(Stenoof
accusedNo.1).Thenononepageofdiary,hementionedhisname,
telephonenumberandhandedovertohim.Further,toimpresshim,
he madeacallandsaid=+ n|r4, = =|| 4|= r| r, +|= r| +| r |
||= + +n| | =|+| andthatheinformedcomplainantthataccused
No.1 agreed to stay his suspension temporarily. Thereafter, accused
No.2toldhimtopayRs.10,000/forhimashisremuneration.
48] The Ld Advocates appearing for accused No.1 and 2
admitted CDR (CallDetails Record)which areat Exh.87A, Exh.84.
Theyalsoadmittedthereportoflocationofmobilenumberofaccused
No.2atExh.105.Ihavegonethroughtheexhibiteddocuments.The
Exh.84 is showing the details of incoming and outgoing calls from
Mobile No.9820130698 which was admittedly in possession of
accusedNo.2.Thesedetailsarenotshowinganycallonthelandline
numberofcomplainantpriorto23/05/2000.Thefirstoutgoingcall
from this mobile Number, on the landline of the complainant i.e.
23015780 was made on 23/05/2000 at about 8.54 hours.
Immediately after that call, the next call is shown on the mobile
number9821053583thoughregisteredinnameofaccusedNo.2but
wasadmittedlyinpossessionofaccusedNo.1,atabout9.11a.m..
49] Thus, the evidence of the complainant is corroborating
theseadmittedcalldetails,thaton23/05/2000,inthemorning,he
receivedphonecallfromaccusedNo.2andpriortothathewasnot
knowingaccusedNo.2.Further,thecaseofthecomplainantthatwhen
hemetaccusedNo.2andwhenhewasinhiscar,accusedNo.2called
fromhismobileandtalkedwiththepersononothersideasonother
sideaccusedNo.1isthere.TheCDRissupportingthiscontentionof
thecomplainant.
50] The Ld. Advocate appearing for accused No.2 though
admittedtheseCDRbutfromthetimingsofthecalli.e.firstcallat
8.54hoursand2
nd
callat9.11hours,triedtopointoutthattheseare
notthetimingsmentionedbythecomplainantinhisdepositionand
thesetimingsaretotallydifferent. Butsincethe9yearsarepassed,
such minor discrepancies may occur in the evidence of the
complainantanditisnotunnatural.
51] TheargumentmadebyLd.Advocatethatwithinashort
time,thecomplainantcannotreachfromAgripadaPoliceQuarterto
Mahim (between 8.54 a.m. To 9.11 a.m.). This argument of Ld.
Advocatecannotbeacceptedasitisnotsuggestedtothewitnessthat
hehadnotreachedwithinthistimeatMahim.Further,thejudicial
noteofthefactcanbetake,thatpriorto10yearsnomuchtrafficwas
therecomparetoheavytrafficasontoday.
52] The evidence of the complainant also cannot be
disbelievedonthispoint,inviewoftheadmitteddocumentatExh.
105, which is showing the location of Call Ids. No.10023111 as
MahimandlocationofCallIDsNo.10021253asShivajiPark(Dadar),
Hence there is reason to believe that the complainant was not
knowingaccusedNo.2priorto23/05/2000tillreceivingthecallfrom
him.
53] TheevidenceofP.W.5(P.W.5/3),henarratedthatpriorto
handingovernotesheetatExh.56byhim,heattachedonepageto
thenotesheet,thepageattachedbyhimismissingandotherpageis
appearinginplaceofpageattachedbyhim.Inthecrossexamination
ofthiswitness,itwasnotsuggestedtohimthathehadnotattached
page to note sheet. The said note sheet is showing that till
26/05/2000, nothing was recommended by accused No.1 regarding
theincidenceof'SairajBarandRestaurant'.
54] P.W.7 Shri Chandan Shinde confirms the visit of accused
No.2inthechamberofaccusedNo.1intheeveningof22/05/2000.
Thecrossofthiswitness(P.W.7)wasconductedanditwassuggested
onbehalfofaccusedNo.1thathehasfalselydeposedagainstaccused
No.1.ItissuggestedtothiswitnessonbehalfofaccusedNo.2thathe
has falsely deposed that accused No.2 instructed him to collect the
informationfromBycullaPoliceStationaboutthedutyhoursofthe
complainant.ThiswitnesshasnotcrossexaminedbyaccusedNo.2,on
thepointthatintheeveningof22/05/2000,accusedNo.2attended
thechamberofaccusedNo.1.Hence,theevidenceofP.W.7remains
unchallenged,sofarasthevisitofaccusedNo.2totheChamberof
AccusedNo.1isconcerned.
55] It is suggested to the witness that 'they have falsely
deposed',butitisnotthecaseofboththeaccusedthatsuchincidence
hadnothappenedatall.Noreasonsarebroughtonrecordtoshow
that for the particular reasons the witnesses including P.W.5, falsely
deposed.Infact,thereshouldnotbeanyreasonforthewitnessesto
deposefalsely against accused No.1 and 2, as there was no enmity
betweenthemandtheyhavenoreasontoinvolvethemfalsely.
56] Perused the note sheet at Exh.56. The first page is
recommendation.Inthisnotesheet,onthefirstpagerecommendation
was given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Warkhad,
aboutsuspensionofPSIGiri,Stoppageoftwoincrementsofpresent
complainantfortheperiodoftwoyears,stoppageofincrementsfor
theperiodofoneyearofPIMohite.Thesamerecommendationswere
followedbyP.W.5DCP,ZoneIII.Butthisnotesheetisshowingthat
the present accused No.1 shown leniency to all these three persons
and note sheet bears the date as 22/05/2000. The accused No.1
recommended 'reprimand' for the complainant and PI Mohite and
stoppage of one increment for the period of one year for PSI Giri.
Prima facie, page on which the notings of accused No.1 starts is
differentthantheothertwopagesofthenotesheet.
57] Inthisregard,theargumentmadebytheLd.Advocatefor
accused No.1 that he was not the competent authority to suspend
Police Inspector i.e. complainant, cannot be considered, in the
backgroundthatevenifhewasnothavingauthoritytosuspendthe
complainant but admittedly, he was authorize to recommend the
suspensionoftheerringofficer,whichhefailedtodo. Itisfurther
clear from this note sheet that ACP Warkhad, recommended the
suspension of PSI Giri, and minor punishment of stoppage of
increment for complainant and Mohite. Similar recommendations
weremadebyP.W.5DCP,ZoneIII.TheaccusedNo.1,whowasthe
AdditionalCommissionerofPolice,andonthehigherpostthanthese
two police officers recommended lighter punishment to all erring
officer. The note sheet also further shows that though the
recommendationsweremadebyvariousofficers,buttill29/05/2000,
noting was done by accused No.1. The conduct of accused No.1 is
clearlyshowinghisguiltymind.Asitisbroughtinevidencethatthe
incidenceof'SairajBar'wasseriousonebutstillaccusedNo.1shown
softcornerstoallguiltyofficersinspiteofthatinthemeetingwith
Commissioner, Commissioner consented for initiating stern action
against the erring officers and the incidence of 'Sairaj Bar' was
seriouslyviewedinthesaidmeeting.
58] In the cross examination of P.W.3, so far as the initial
incidence is concerned, it has been brought on record that the
incidence of 'Sairaj Bar and Restaurant' was not confidential as the
copies of panchanama were prepared and forwarded. Accused No.1
wasnotcompetenttosuspendhim.Itwasalsosuggestedtohimthat
hehadnotconductedenquirywithhiscolleaguei.e.MohiteandGiri,
that he involved the name of accused No.1 without any reason, to
obtainpublicityandtopleasehissuperiorofficer.Itisalsosuggested
tothiswitnessthat,hehadnotdiscussedtheissuei.e.demandmade
byaccusedNo.2,foraccusedNo.1,withanyone.
59] Further, that he has falsely deposed about the call
receivedtohimfromaccusedNo.2inthemorningof23/05/2000.It
issuggestedtothiswitnessthatwithintentiontoinvolvetheaccused
No.1,helodgedcomplaintandthathehasfalselydeposed.
60] In statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. of accused No.2, while
answeringquestionNo.37,heflatlyrefusedthatthecallwasmadeby
himtothecomplainant(P.W.3)inthemorning,on23/05/2000.The
suggestiongiventothewitnessthathehadnotdiscussedthedemand
made by accused No.2 for accused No.1 with anyone including his
colleague,isnotofmuchhelpfultothedefence,forthereasonthat
theconductofthecomplainantofnotdiscussingthesaidissuewith
anyoneisquitenatural.Itisnotexpectedfromanyonethathewould
discusstheissueofdemandofbribebyhissuperiorauthority,withthe
othercolleagues.
61] Inthisconnection,itneedstobeconsideredthatadmitted
documenti.e.CDRisshowingcallmadebypresentaccusedNo.2to
thecomplainantinthemorningof23/05/2000.Theaccusedcannot
blowhotandcold,byadmittingCDRononehandandthen,denying
thesameinthestatementu/s.313ofCr.P.C. Though,thereissome
discrepanciesinthetimings,butthecallwasmade,hasbeenproved
through the said exhibited documents. The accused No.2 flatly
refusingabouthisconversationwithcomplainantabouttheincidence
of'SairajBarandRestaurant'andabouttheinformationgivenbyhim
tothecomplainantthatheisgoingtobesuspended.
62] The argument made by the Ld. advocate appearing for
accusedNo.1and2thatincidenceof'SairajBarandRestaurant'was
not confidential, it was known to everyone and therefore, the
evidenceofthecomplainant,thataccusedNo.2,approachedtohim
regarding the said incidence is totally false. In the entire chain of
circumstances, it is an important factor that though the argument
made by the Ld. Advocate is considered, regarding the non
confidentialityofthe'SairajBarandRestaurants'casethen,thereisno
explanationbroughtonrecordbybothofthem,toshowthatwhythe
complaintwaslodgedonlyagainstaccusedNo.2bythecomplainant,
when the complainant, was not knowing him prior to that date
23/05/2000.Inthiscircumstances,italsoneedstobenotedthatonly
thepersonwhowascloselyassociatedwithaccusedNo.1i.e.accused
No.2,approachestothecomplainant,though,thenewsof'SairajBar
andRestaurant'wasspreadalloverinthePoliceDepartment,noone
otherthanthepresentaccusedNo.2hadcontactedthecomplainant.
The chain of circumstances is showing that there was previous
meetingofmindbetweentheaccusedNo.1and2,inordertodemand
andextractthebribeamountfromthecomplainant. Theconductof
accused No.2, refusing flatly about the call made by him to the
complainant,isalsonotsupportinghispleaofinnocence. Thesaid
answer given by accused which is totally against the document
admittedbyhimshalladverselyeffecthispleaofinnocence.
63] TheCrossofP.W.7wasconductedonthepointofvisitof
accused No.2 to the chamber of accused No.1 on 22/05/2000.
Further, the evidence of P.W.6 is showing that no recommendations
weremadebyaccusedNo.1till26/05/2000.ThereisnocrossofP.W.
7onthepointthataccusedNo.2waspresentintheofficeofaccused
No.1 on 22/05/2000. The Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of
accusedNo.1and2onthepointofphonecallmentionedinExh.84
madebyaccusedNo.2toaccusedNo.1andalsotothecomplainant
arguesthatevenifassumingthatsuchcallwasmade.AccusedNo.1
and2meton22/05/2000,thereisnoevidenceto showthat they
werediscussingabouttheconspiracy.Thephonecallshowsthatthe
conversation took place between them and therefore, they strongly
argued on the point that there is no evidence to show that on
23/05/2000,inthemorning,accusedNo.2askedthecomplainantto
meet him in connection with the incidence of 'Sairaj Bar and
Restaurant'.Theyalsosuggestedthatthereisnocorroborationtothe
evidenceofP.W.3,suchcorroborationisrequiredasheisnotcredit
worthywitnessashisconduct andcharacterisquestionableinthis
case. According to them, P.W.3 being the accomplice, his sole
testimonycannotbebelieved.
64] Theevidencei.e.documentaryaswellasoralevidencefor
provingthechargeu/s.120BofIndianPenalCode,whichhasbeen
produced on record by the prosecution is found trustworthy and
reliable.Thechainofcircumstancesi.e.happeningof'SairajBarand
Restaurant'inthemidnightof21/05/2000and22/05/2000,meeting
ofCrimeCommitteeintheofficeofCommissioner,recommendations
by two police officers suggesting major penalties to erring police
officers,presenceofaccusedNo.2intheofficeofaccusedNo.1inthe
eveningof22/05/2000,admittedphonecallbyaccusedNo.2tothe
complainantandimmediatelyafterthat,anotherphonecallmadeby
himtoaccusedNo.1,knowledgeofaccusedNo.2abouttheincidence
of'SairajBarandRestaurant' andinvolvementofcomplainantinthe
incidence of 'Sairaj Bar and Restaurant', initiative taken by accused
No.2tocallthecomplainantandinformedhimabouttheproposed
action of hissuspension, admittedly complainant was not knowing
accusedNo.2priorto23/05/2000,theabovechainofcircumstances
isclearlyshowingthattherewaspreviousmeetingofmindbetween
accusedNo.1and2andtheyhatchedtheconspiracytoextractbribe
amountfromthecomplainant.
65] This chain of circumstances complete when complainant
visitedtheofficeofAccusedNo.1afterhandingoverthebribeamount
toaccusedNo.2on26/05/2000.TheconductofaccusedNo.1onthat
is found relevant to the criminal conspiracy which is discussed in
furtherparagraph.
66] As discussed in earlier paras, there cannot be direct
evidence to prove the offence punishable u/s.120B of Indian Penal
Code.Theprosecutionisdutyboundtoshowthecircumstanceswhich
createstheoffence.
67] Inthiscase,sincetheCDRproducedatExh.84,78Aare
admitted by theLd. advocatesforaccusedNo.1and 2. Thereisno
reasonformetoseekthecomplianceofSec.65BofIndianEvidence
Act. The accused No.1 in Statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. while
answeringQuestionNo.88,flatlyrefusedthathereceivedphonecall
fromaccusedNo.2,butagainthisconductofaccusedNo.1specially
whenthedocumentsonrecordi.e.Exh.84isshowingthatphonecalls
wasmadebyaccusedNo.2tohim,isnotsupportinghispleaoftotal
denial,innocenceandfalseimplication.
68] Sofarastheanotherargumentmadebytheld.advocates
for accused No.1 and 2, that the complaint was false and it was
lodgedtopleasethesuperiorofficers,butinthisconnection,nothing
has been produced on record or also suggested in the cross
examination to this witness that on direction of which superior
officers' or to please which superior officers, the complaint was
lodged. Further, in the entire evidence, no reasons are brought on
recordoreveninthestatementu/s.313ofCr.P.C.,noexplanationhas
been offered by both accused to involve them falsely by the
complainant.
69] So far as the defence of accused No.1 that he was not
having authority to suspend the complainant is concerned, the Ld.
Prosecutor relied upon two reported judgements in support of her
argument:
i]1976SCC(Cri.)351incaseof
ChaturdasBhagwandasPatelV/s.StateofGujrat
ii](2004)SCC399incaseof
StateofA.P.V/s.C.UmaMaheshwaraRao&Ors.
70] In both these judgments it has been observed by
HonorableLordshipthat
Notpossessingauthoritycouldnotnegatethesaidcharge
Andthat
Toconstituteanoffenceunderthissection,itisenoughifthe
publicservantwhoacceptsthegratification,takesitbyinducing
abelieforbyholding,outthathewouldrenderassistancetothe
giverwithanyotherpublicservantandthegivergivesthe
gratificationunderthatbelief. Itisfurtherimmaterialifthe
publicservantreceivingthegratificationdoesnotintendtodo
theofficialact,favourorforbearancewhichheholdshimself
outascapableofdoing.Thisisclearbythelastexplanation
appendedtoSection161andillustration(c).
71] Thus, from the ratio laid down, it is clear that non
possessingauthoritytodoanyact,cannotbedefenceorgroundfor
theaccusedtoescapefromchargesofCorruption,asinthiscaseitis
oneofthedefenceofaccusedNo.1.Inviewofthecitedjudgment,I
amnotinclinedtoaccepttheargumentmadebyLd.Advocatethatthe
accused No.1 was not having any authority to suspend the
complainant.ItisnotdisputedbyaccusedNo.1,atanypointoftime
that he was not authorised to recommend suspension of the
complainant.
72] Theconductofboththeaccuseddenyingthephonecall
made by accused No.2, to complainant, and to accused No.1, has
destroyed the presumption of innocence in their favour. As it is
observedbytheHonorableApexCourt inacasereportedin1960
CRI.L.J.682 in case of Anant Chinataman Lagu V/s. State of
Bombay
Theconductwhichdestroysthepresumptionof
innocencecanalsobeconsideredasmaterial
ThisprinciplelaiddownbytheHonorableApexCourtisapplicablein
thiscasesofarastheanswersgivenbybothaccusedtothequestions
putuptothemu/s.313ofCr.P.C.,abouttheincidenceof23/05/2000
isconcerned.Further,theiranswersaretotallycontrarytotheirown
admissionsofdocumentsproducedatExh.78A,Exh.84andExh.105.
73] SofarastheargumentmadebyLd.Advocateforaccused
No.1and2onthepointofconductandquestionablecharacterofthe
complainantisconcerned,atthisstage,conductandcharacterofthe
complainantneedstobeconsideredwithaviewtoseethatwhether
there is sufficient evidence, to prove the charges u/s.120B of I.P.C.
Infact,nothinghasbeenbroughtonrecordinthecrossexamination
or in the explanation u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. to show that when the
complaintwaslodgedbyP.W.3andwhenhereceivesphonecallfrom
accusedNo.2.Hewasofsuchcharacterthathisdepositionneedsto
bediscarded.SofarastheconductandquestionablecharacterofP.W.
3 is concerned, I am discussing the said issue in detail, in further
paragraphsofjudgement.
74] So far as the argument that accused No.1 was not
authorisedtosuspendthecomplainantisnotofmuchimportance,in
viewofthat,hewasauthorisedtorecommendthesuspensionofthe
complainantanditisundisputedfact.
75] TheLd.advocateforaccusedNo.2arguesthat,timingsof
the call made to complainant and immediately, thereafter to the
accused No.1, by accused No.2, are not corroborating the oral
evidenceofthecomplainant.Itistruethatthetimingsaresomehow
different, but it should be kept in mind that the complainant had
deposed after the period of about 10 years from the date of
occurrenceoftheincidence,suchminordiscrepanciesofthetimings
arenotunnatural.Ontheotherhand,itisshowingthatheisnotthe
tutorwitnessandhedeposednaturallyasperhismemory.Evenifthe
timingsaresomehowdifferent,butforthatreasononlytheevidence
ofthecomplainantcannotbediscarded,whenitiscorroboratingto
theExh.78AandExh.84andalsothelocationfromwherethecalls
weremade,asshowninExh.105.
76] It is well settled principle of law that there cannot be
directevidenceontheconspiracyhatchedbyaccusedpersonsandit
shouldbeinferredfromthecircumstancesshowingtheirguiltymind.
Asdiscussedinaboveparas,thephonecallsmadebyaccusedNo.2to
complainant, the immediate phone call made by accused No.2 to
accusedNo.1,inspiteofsternactionsuggested,changeinthepageof
notesheetatExh.56showingleniencytoalltheerringpoliceofficers
byaccusedNo.1,continuousvisitofaccusedNo.2tothechamberof
accusedNo.1conductofaccusedNo.1whencomplainantvisitedhis
chamberon26/05/2000aresomeoftheinstancesandcircumstances
whichareconnectedinonechainandarethecircumstancesagainst
accusedNo.1and2.
77] In support of my conclusion, I place reliance on the
judgmentreportedin(2002)7SupremeCourtCases 334incaseof
Mohd.KhalidV/s.StateofWestBengal,whereinitisobservedby
HonorableLordshipofApexCourtthat
Offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or
circumstantial evidence. However, conspiracies are not
hatched in the open, by their nature, they are secretly
planned. Privacyandsecrecyaremorecharacteristicsofa
conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place
opentopublicview.Directevidenceinproofofaconspiracy
is therefore seldom available. It is not always possible to
give affirmative evidence about the date of the the
formationof
the conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set
beforethemselvesastheobjectofconspiracy,andaboutthe
mannerinwhichtheobjectofconspiracyistobecarried
out,allthisisnecessarilyamatterofinference.Therefore,
the circumstances proved before, during and after the
occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
complicity of the accused. Where trustworthy evidence
establishingalllinksofcircumstantialevidenceisavailable
theconfessionofacoaccusedastoconspiracyevenwithout
corroborative evidencecan be taken into consideration. It
caninsomecasesbeinferredfromtheactsandconductof
theparties.
78] Inviewoftheabovediscussion,theargumentmadebythe
Ld.advocatesappearingforaccusedNo.1and2arenotacceptableto
me.Thereissufficientevidenceavailableonrecordaspointedoutby
Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorandthecircumstancesmentionedinthe
above paras are clearly showing that the charge u/s.120B of I.PC.
r/w. Sec.7, 12, 13(1)(d)r/w.13(2)of Preventionof CorruptionAct,
1988 has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable
doubt,inthiscase.
DEMANDMADEBYACCUSEDNO.2FORHIMSELF
ANDFORACCUSEDNO.1ON23/05/2000
79] Itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthaton23/05/2000,when
thecomplainantwastravellingwithaccusedNo.2inhiscar,accused
No.2demandedbribeamountofRs.5lakhsforaccusedNo.1andRs.
10,000/ for himself as 'Mehanatana' and further, asked the
complainanttopaytheentireamountintheeveningonthesameday.
Admittedly,thecomplainantisthesolewitnessonthepointofsaid
demandmadebyaccusedNo.2inhiscar.
80] In the evidence of the complainant, he deposed about
(Paragraph 6, Page No.3/4) phone call received to him and the
description of the car was given by accused No.2. In the next
paragraph(ParagraphNo.7,No.3/4)hedeposedthathenoticedthe
said car,he reached near the car, the person in the car introduced
himself asLodha, CharteredAccountantof accusedNo.1andasked
himtositinsidethecar.Afterrunningthevehicle,thecarwasstopped
and the incidence of 'Sairaj Bar and Restaurant' was narrated by
accusedNo.2tohim.ThenaccusedNo.2toldhimthataccusedNo.1
demandedRs.5lakhsfromthecomplainantfornotsuspendinghim.
AccusedNo.2alsotoldhimthathewillhavetopayRs.3lakhsasfirst
installmentat5O'clockintheeveningofthesamedayandrestofthe
amount after the work is over. To inspire his confidence, he also
narratedthenameofStenoSayyedattachedtotheaccusedNo.1.He
handed over one piece of paper to him, on which accused No.2
mentionedhisname,addressandphonenumber.Heagaintoldhimto
arrangeRs.3lakhsandthentoinspireconfidence,hemadeacallto
accusedNo.1.
81] ThecloseassociationofaccusedNo.1and2hasnotbeen
disputed,thiscanevenbeinferfromtheCalldetailsproducedatExh.
78AandExh.84.Theonlysuggestiongiventothecomplainantthat
YoufalselydeposedthataccusedNo.2took
outhismobileandtalkedwithaccusedNo.1.
inmyviewisnotsufficient.
82] Itisnecessarytobearinmindthattheincidenceof'Sairaj
Bar'wasveryconfidential,butaccordingtothecomplainant,accused
No.2 calledhim anddemanded money from him. Further, nothing
hasbeenbroughtonrecordtoshowthattherewaspreviousenmity
betweenthecomplainantandaccusedNo.1and2orthecomplainant
was used as an instrument by the superior officers of Police
Department to involve the accused No.1 falsely in this case.
Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the
complainant who is the sole witness on the point of first demand
madebyaccusedNo.2inhiscar.
83] Further,CDRatExh.84isshowingoneincomingcallon
the mobile of accused No.2 on 23/05/2000, at about 16.24 hours
whichalsocorroboratingtheoralevidenceofthecomplainantthaton
thatday,intheevening,hemadecalltoaccusedNo.2(P.W.3/8)and
asked him for some time. The cross examination of P.W.3 was not
conducted on the point that such incidence had not at all occurred
withthecomplainant.
84] Again the similar argument made by Ld. Advocate for
accused No.1 and 2 that conduct and character of complainant is
questionable.IhavealreadymentionedthatIamseparatelydealing
withthisissue,butinmyview,thisargumentcannotbeacceptedfor
thefollowingreason,
i]thattheaccusedNo.1washissuperiorofficerwhowas
muchaboutinhierarchythanhim.
ii]tillthatdate,nothingadversewashappenedsoasto
leadhimtolodgefalsecomplaintagainstaccusedNo.2or
even mentioning the name of accused No.1 in the
complaint.
85] The deposition of the complainant on the very first
demandmadebyaccusedNo.2needstobebelieved,asaccordingto
the complainant, for the first time, he received phone call from
accusedNo.2.Heproceededtomeethim. Thereafter,accusedNo.2
demanded bribe amount for accused No.1 and 'Mehantana' for
himself. Thisdepositionofcomplainanthasnotbeenchallengedby
accusedNo.1. OnbehalfofaccusedNo.2,itissuggestedthatYou
havefalselydeposed. ItisnotsuggestedthataccusedNo.2never
demandedmoneyforaccusedNo.1andforhimself.Itisnotthecase
ofaccusedNo.2inhiscrossexaminationthatP.W.3nevermetaccused
No.2nearMahimPolicestationinthemorningof23/05/2000.
86] It is to be bear in mind that on 23/05/2000, the
complainant met with accused No.2 for the first time. Therefore,
seekingcorroborationisnotjustified.Theevidenceofthecomplainant
withoutanycorroborationonthepointoffirstdemandneedstobe
accepted,forthereasonthat,onthatoccasion,hecannotbetreated
ortermedas'anaccomplice' forthereasonthatatthattime,hewas
not aware that why he was called by accused No.2 or that he was
calledbyaccusedNO.2fordemandinggratification.Inthisregard,I
placerelianceontheobservationmadebytheHonorableHighCourt(
Punjab&Haryana)inajudgementreportedin1983Cri.L.J.1338in
caseofRajendraKumarSoodV/s.StateofPunjab.
Weareoftheopinionthatthereisnoquestionofthe
Court insisting upon any such independent
corroboration of the complainant in regard to the
circumstanceofthekind.Whenagivencomplainantfirst
visitsapublicservantfordoingornotdoingsometask
forhimhedoesnotgotohimasatrapwitness.Hegoes
there in a natural way for a given task. To require a
witnesstotakeawitnesswithhimatthatstagewould
amounttoattributingtothecomplainantathoughtand
foreknowledgeofthefactthattheaccusedwoulddemand
bribe.
Forthereasonsaforementionedwefindnomeritinthe
argument and hold that no such independent
corroboration of the kind of a fact mooted in
propositionNo.1isnecessaryatall.
87] TheLd.AdvocateforaccusedNo.2placedrelianceonthe
judgementreportedincaseofPannalalDamodarRathiV.s,Stateof
Maharashtra, inAIR1979 SC1191, judgement reported in 2005
ALL MR (Cri.)1157, in case of Ninaji Wagh V.s. State of
Maharashtra and 2005(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 940 in case of
PandharinathShelkeV.s.StateofMaharashtra,thesituationofthe
complainantinthecitedcasesistotallydifferentthaninthecasein
hand.
88] Inthiscase,tillmeetingwithaccusedNo.2,complainant
was not aware that accused No.2 called him in order to demand
moneyandtherefore,fortheincidencedated23/05/2000,happened
in the morning time, the complainant cannot be treated as 'an
accomplice'.
89] The accused No.2 in the statement recorded u/s.313 of
Cr.P.C.totallydeniedthathemetcomplainanton23/05/2000.Again
his falseanswer arematerialinthis case. Therefore,inview of the
above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable
doubtthattheveryfirstdemandofbribe,dated23/05/2000,inthe
morning, wasmadebyaccusedNo.2foraccusedNo.1andalsoRs.
10,000/ for himself. In view of the conspiracy hatched by them, I
answerPointNo.2intheaffirmative.
AstoPointNo.3and6.
THEDEMANDANDACCEPTANCEOFBRIBEAMOUNT
ON26/05/2000
90] It is the case of the prosecution that after meeting with
accusedNo.2,thecomplainantwasshocked,thus,onthatdayinstead
of attending his duty, he returned back to his home. Thereafter on
24/05/2000 and 25/05/2000, he proceeded on sick leave. On
23/05/2000,hemadeacallfromhislandlinenumbertotheaccused
No.2onhismobile.HetalkedwithaccusedNo.2andrequestedhim
forsometimetogiveamount.
91] In the deposition of the complainant, (P.W.3/13) he
narratedthat thesaidconversationbetweenhimandaccusedNo.2.
Healsorecorded inthe cassettetheconversationbetweenhimand
accusedno.2.Heproducedthesaidcassetteatthetimeoflodgingof
thecomplaint.
92] Inthecrossexaminationofthiswitness,whoisagainthe
sole witness on the said conversation, it is suggested to him by
accused No.2 (P.W.3/43) that he has falsely narrated so. In this
connection, admitted document speaks for itself. In the said
documentat Exhibit 84as discussedinabove paragraph,there is
entryofincomingcallfromthelandlinenumberofthecomplainantto
the mobile number of the accused No.2. It shows that on
23/05/2000,at16.24hoursthecomplainantcalledfromhislandline
numberonthemobilenumberoftheaccusedno.2.Thedepositionof
the complainant in this regard is collaborated by the documentary
evidenceproducedatExh.84.Thepulseofthesaidcallisshownas
120. If the pulse are converted into minutes which comes as
approximately1minutes.Thecassettewhichwasproducedbythe
complainant while lodging his FIR is marked as Article 1 and its
transcriptisproducedatExh.37,thesaidtranscriptwasverifiedand
compare by the then Presiding Officer of this Court ( Now High
CourtJudge,HonourableJusticeNalawade)andnotingtothateffect
hasalsobeenmentionedintheRoznamadated09/04/2009.
93] Ihavecarefullygonethroughthesaidnotings.Inthesaid
noting,ithasbeenobservedthat,
TheCassettewassealedon26/05/2000. Itstranscript
at Exh.37 that the conversation recorded in the cassette and the
transcriptatExh.37iscorrect.
94] Theconversationrecorded,beinganexhibiteddocument
canbereadintotheevidence.Thisconversationisshowingthatthey
werediscussingabouttheamountandthecomplainantrequestedfor
timetomanagetheamount.
95] TheaccusedNo.2inthestatement recordedu/s.313of
Cr.P.C. while answering the question No.71, flatly refused that on
23/05/2000 at about 16.24 hours, he received phone call from the
complainant. The said document has been admitted by him. This
conductof accused iscertainly objectionableasit iscontrarytohis
ownadmission.
96] InthecrossexaminationofPW3,itisnotsuggestedto
himthathetamperedwiththecassettethevoiceinthesaidcassette
Article1isnotofaccusedNo.2.Intheentirecrossexamination,no
suchsuggestionhasbeenofferedtothecomplainant.Thetranscriptof
conversationandactualconversationinthecassettewasverifiedby
the Ld. Predecessors of this Court. Hence, there is no reason to
disbelieve that the said conversation was not recorded by the
complainant,whichwasheldbetweenhimandaccusedNo.2.
97] The Ld. Advocates for accused No.1 and 2 vehemently
argued that the specimen voice of accused No.1 and 2 was not
recordedduringtheinvestigationforforwardingthesametoCFSLto
confirm that the recorded voice is of accused No.1 and 2. In this
regard,thisargumentmadebytheLd.Advocatecannotbeconsidered
as it is not their case in the cross examination of any witness who
haveidentifiedthevoiceofaccusedNo.1and2thatItisnotthe
original voice of accused No.1 and 2 and it is concocted voice of
accused No.1 and 2. Further, it is also not suggested to the
witnessesthattheyarenotconversantwiththevoicesofaccusedNo.1
and2.TheLd.advocateappearingonbehalfofaccusedNO.1and2
alsostronglyobjectedforrelyingonthetaperecordedevidencefor
want of noncompliance of rules framed by the Hon'ble High Court
(Criminal Manual Chapter VI 'General Rules as to Inquiries and
Trials in all Courts Precedence and expeditious Disposal of Capital
Cases', Rule 24) for production, use and recording of the Tape
RecordedEvidenceinCourt
whichcomeintoforcew.e.f.01/08/1978.
98] I have gone through the said rules. According to me,
whilepreparingtranscriptandwhileproducingthecassetteatArticle
1, this rules are followed by the prosecution, as already discussed
above. It is not suggested to the witness i.e. complainant that he
tampered with the cassette before producing it in front of
Investigating officer. The complainant who had heard the voice of
accusedNo.2firstlyontelephoneandthen, inhiscar,istheproper
persontoidentifyhisvoice.Thevoiceidentificationofaccusedno.2
bycomplainantalsoneedstobetrusted,inviewofthat,accusedNo.2
hadtalkedwiththecomplainantonimportantissueandtherefore,it
needs to be presumed that the complainant was remembering his
voiceverywell.Further,thevoiceofaccusedNo.2wasidentifiedby
theotherwitnesseswhohadanoccasiontotalkwithhim.Therefore,
the objection raised by the Ld. advocate for accused No.2 in
connectionwiththeArticleNo.1anditstranscriptisnotsustainable
specificallywhenitisnotpointedoutthat,whichruleframedbythe
Honourable High Court has not been followed, by the prosecution
whileproducingArticle1anditstranscriptintheCourt. Therefore,
thetaperecordedevidencedated23/05/2000isadmissibleandfound
trustworthy. ThesaidconversationmentionedinExh.37tookplace
between the complainant and accused No.2 on telephone. The
evidenceofthecomplainantisalsocorroboratingbyCDRproducedat
Exh.84 . It is suggested to P.W.3 that he concocted the voice of
accusedNo.2on23/05/2000.ThisdefenceraisedbytheaccusedNo.
2isnotatallacceptableastherewasnoreasonforthecomplainantto
concoctthevoiceofaccusedNo.2whenforthefirsttime,hemethim
in the morning of that day. In the statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. of
accusedNo.2whileansweringtoQuestionNo.63,herefusedthatthe
callwasreceivedonhismobilefromthelandlineofthecomplainant.
AgainthisconductofaccusedNo.2ismaterial.
99] In view of the above discussion, the evidence of the
complainantonthepointthaton23/05/2000hecalledonthemobile
ofaccusedNo.2andrequestedhimforsometimetopaytheamount
cannotbediscarded.
100] Itisfurtherthecaseoftheprosecutionthattheaccused
No.1 proceeded on sick leave on 24/05/2000 and 25/05/2000 and
duringthatperiod,accusedNo.2wascallingonthelandlinenumber
of thecomplainant. Thisinformationwasgivenby thewife ofthe
complainanttohim.Inthisregard,theLd.AdvocateforaccusedNo.2
stronglyarguesthattheevidenceofthecomplainantonthisparticular
issue cannot be believed as his wife who had actually attended the
call, has not been examined. According to him the evidence of
complainantishearsay.
101] This objection raised by the Ld. advocate is not
sustainable. In view of the admitted document at Exh.84 which is
clearly showing that during this period, the calls were made by
accusedNo.2onthelandlineofthecomplainant.Further,thisExh.84
is corroborating the evidence of the complainant. Therefore, non
examination of the wife of the complainant as witness is not at all
fataltothecaseofprosecution.
102] Inthisregard,againtheaccusedNo.2 inthestatement
u/s.313ofCr.P.C.,whileansweringthequestionNo.71flatlyrefused
thathemadecallsmadefromhismobiletothelandlinenumberof
thecomplainant. ItisnotthecaseoftheaccusedNo.2thatduring
this period, he was not possessing his mobile. Again this denial is
certainlynotfavoringthepleaoftotaldenialoftheaccused,inview
oftheadmitteddocuments.
103] Itisfurtherthecaseoftheprosecutionthatinthemorning
of26/05/2000,P.W.3lodgedthecomplaintatExh.35withACB.The
said complaint was registered as Crime No.23/2000 by the
Investigating Officer Shri.Kohe, (PW. 20). It is the case of the
complainantthatatthetimeoflodgingofthiscomplaint,heproduced
cassetteArticleA,andchitatExh.97givenbyaccusedNo.2tohim.
ImmediatelyInvestigatingofficercalledtwopanchwitness,oneShri.
Medhe(P.W.4)andanotherShri. Khandare. Thepretrapprocedure
wasconducted.Duringthepretrapprocedure,personalsearchofthe
complainant was conducted, demonstration of anthracene powder
was shown, anthracene powder was then applied on the currency
notesofRs.2,10,000/(consistingof4bundlesof400currencynotes
of Rs.500/ denominations and 100 currency notes of Rs.100/
denominations). The said currency notes were then kept in one
polythene bag bearing the marked of Excel Tailor, which was
producedbythecomplainant.(P.W.3/10,Paragraph12and13)(P.W.
4/2,Paragraph3).
104] Accordingtothecomplainant,
aftercheckingthesaidcurrencynotesunderUVL,bluish
glow was noted on the currency notes. Thereafter, as per the
instructions of Investigating officer, P.W.20, one Havaldar/employee
kept the said tainted currency notes inside the carry bag cautiously
andthesaidcarrybagwasgiventohimbyShriKohe,(PW20).
105] IntheevidenceofP.W.4hehasdeposedthat,
bluishglowwasnotedonthecurrencynotesunderUVL,
notes were kept in one polythene bag by same Havaldar who had
given the demonstration. Shri Kohe gave instructions to the
complainant to carry the said polythene bag containing currency
notes.Therefore,ShriKokil(P.W.3)liftedthatbaginhisrighthand.
106] TheLd.advocateforaccusedNo.2hasnotcrossexamined
P.W.4,butcrossexaminedP.W.3(P.W.3/44,Paragraph55last3lines
continuedonPage3/45,)andthiswitnessadmittedthat,
itwillbeincorrecttosaythatI,myselfhadliftedthe
carrybagcontainingthetaintedcurrencynotes.
107] TheLd.advocateappearingforaccusedNo.2pointedout
that this is the major contradiction in the evidence of P.W.3 and 4.
According to him, as per the deposition of P.W.4, the complainant
himselfliftedthecarrybaginhis righthandandaccordingtothe
complainant, the said carry bag was handed over to him by
InvestigatingofficerShriKohe. Infact,theissuethatwhohadlifted
thecarrybagorwhetheritwasliftedbythecomplainanthimselfor
whetheritwashandedovertothecomplainantbytheinvestigating
officer,isnotofmuchimportantinthiscase,orinanytrapcase.What
is important is, carrying the tainted currency notes by the
complainant. Only because of such minor contradiction case of
prosecutioncannotbethrownaway.
108] In my view, giving the bag containing tainted currency
notesbytheinvestigatingofficerinthehandofthecomplainantor
liftingofthesaidbagbythecomplainanthimselfdoesnotmakeany
difference. Whethereitherofoneisaccepted,whatisimportantis
thatcomplainantmustpossesscarrybagcontainingcurrencynotesin
it in order to hand over the same to the accused. Therefore, the
argumentsmadebytheLd.advocateisnotacceptable.
109] So far as the Chit at Exh.97 is concerned, which was
preparedononepaperofsmalldiaryandhandedoverbytheaccused
No.2 to the complainant on 23/05/2000 mentioning his name,
telephonenumberandaddress,whichwaslateronexhibitedasExh.
97,Iamseparatelydealingwiththeevidenceofexpertwitnessalong
withExh.97andExh.98,producedbytheprosecution.
110] Itisfurthercaseofprosecutionthat,aftercompletingthe
pre trap procedure vide Exh.47, all trapping team members with
complainantandpanchwitnessesproceededtowardsthehouseofthe
complainant,at that time, Radio Mechanic Shri Kittur (P.W.14 ) was
alsowiththem.Thetaperecorderwasattachedtothelandlinephone
ofthecomplainant.Inthepresenceofall,thecomplainantcalledfrom
hislandlinenumber,atabout13.30hours,onthemobilenumberof
accusedNo.2.ThiscallhasbeenrecordedandshowninExh.84.The
conversationtookplacebetweenthecomplainantandthepersonon
theotherside i.e.accusedNo.2,wasrecordedinaCassette. Then
callwasended.Thenafterabout10minutes,onecallreceivedonthe
landlinenumberofthecomplainantatabout13.40hours.Theentry
in the Exh.84 is showing that this call was made on the landline
numberofthecomplainantbyaccusedNo.2.Thepulseofboththese
callsareshowing90and60respectively.Itisshowingthatforquite
reasonabletimetheconversationtookplacebetweenthem.Thishas
been deposed by P.W.3 (Paragraph 16, P.W.3/14, 3/15) (P.W.4/6,
paragraph6,4/7continuedonpage4/5).andalsointheevidenceof
P.W.20,(Page20/07,20/08,20/09),thePW14,alsosupportedand
collaborated the evidence of complainant, panch and Investigating
officer, (P.W 14/2 , Paragraph 3), the oral evidence of these three
witnessesisagaincorroboratingadmitteddocumentatExh.84.This
Exh.84isshowingthatincomingcallonthemobileofaccusedNo.2at
about13.30hoursandoutgoingcallfromhismobileatabout13.40
hoursof90and60pulserespectively. Inthestatementofaccused
recordedu/s.313ofCr.P.C.whileansweringtheQuestionNo.103and
108,heagainflatlyrefusedthatsuchcallwasreceivedtohimfrom
thelandlinenumberofthecomplainantandthereafterhemadecallto
complainant.ThatagainthisconductoftheaccusedNo.2iscontrary
tohisownadmitteddocuments.Itneedstobenotedthat,theperson
canlie,butnotthedocuments.Hence,thereisnoreasonformeto
accepttheargumentmadebytheLd.AdvocateforaccusedNo.2that
thesefourwitnesseshavefalselydeposedaboutthesaidcallmadeby
the complainant to accused No.2 and then, by accused No.2 to the
complainant.
111] ThethenPresidingOfficerofthisCourt(NowHighCourt
Judge, Honourable Justice Nalawade), observe in the noting dated
09/04/2009, ''that the transcript of the said conversation was
compared with the actual recording in the cassette''. The said
transcript is marked as Exh.40, it has been endorsed by the then
Presiding Officer and also bears signature and date. The said
transcript had already verified and the conversation in it, has been
deposedbythewitnesses.Ihavegonethroughthesaidtranscript.The
saidtranscriptisshowingtheconversationbetweenthecomplainant
and the accused No.2. The said transcript at Exh. 40 is also
collaborated the deposition of the complainant. The said
conversation is showing that, the accused No.2, informed the
complainant about the place where he is reaching for collecting
amount,as, |=| +| |==| r|| ||.(thesameplacewheretheymet
day before yesterday) The Ld. Advocate for accused No.2 again
strongly objected on the same ground that the rules framed by the
Hon'ble High Court are not followed and the complainant in his
depositionnotdeposedtheentireconversation,asitisdeposedbyP.W.
4 andP.W.20. Asdiscussedinaboveparagraphs,whiledealingwith
thecassetteatArticleAanditstranscript,Iamrelyingonthesame
findingsgivenbymeinthatregardevenforthecassetteatArticle2
anditstranscriptatExh.40. Iamthereforerejectingtheargument
madebyLd.Advocateforaccusedno.2.
112] SofarasthedepositionofP.W.4andP.W.20isconcerned,
therearesomeminordiscrepanciesintheirdepositionregardingthe
actual conversation took place between the complainant and the
accusedNo.2suchas+|+ n==| +|?''and a+|nl n==| +|?,infact
themeaningofboththewordsi.e.NokarandChaprasiisoneandthe
same in Marathi language. In my view, such minor discrepancies
cannot vitiate the evidence of these two witnesses, who had
personally heard the recorded conversation. The said conversation
andthedepositionofP.W.3,P.W.4andP.W.20isclearlyshowingthat
evenontelephone,thetalkofdemandofbribeforaccusedNo.1were
held,betweenthecomplainantandaccusedNo.2.
113] ThenonrecordingofspecimenvoiceofaccusedNo.1and
2isnotfataltothecaseofprosecution,forthereasonthat,thereport
ofCFSLisalwaysacorroborativepieceofevidence.Butinthiscase,
the oral evidence of the witnesses is available. So far as the tape
recorded evidence is concerned, the argument of Ld. Special Public
Prosecutorneedstobeaccepted,inviewofdepositionofP.W.4and
P.W.20(Para4/25,Para19,P.W.20/23,Para18)whereinithasbeen
deposed by them that on 30/05/2000, the cassettes in sealed
condition were opened and its copies were prepared. The
panchanama to that effect was prepared at Exh.49. No cross
examinationofP.W.4onbehalfofaccusedNo.1and2wasconducted
onthispartofdeposition.IncrossexaminationofP.W.20,onbehalfof
accused No.2, it was suggested that cassettes were opened by him
without permission of the Court. The transcript has been
manipulated.ItneedstobenotedthattranscriptsatExh.37,39and
40 are in printed form. No manipulation is noticed in it. It is not
suggestedtothiswitnessthathetamperedwithcassettes.Itisalsonot
suggested that the voice in cassettes is not of accused No.1 and
accusedNo.2.
114] I further place reliance on the reported judgement,
submitted by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor in support of my
conclusionthatthetaperecordedevidenceisadmissibleinthiscase.
AIR1964SupremeCourt72incaseofS.PratrapSinghV.s.Stateof
Punjab, wherein it is observed by the Honorable Apex Court in
paragraph75and76ofthejudgementthat
Taperecordingscanbelegalevidencebywayof
corroboratingthestatementsofapersonwho
deposesthattheotherspeakerandhecarriedon
thatconversationorevenofthestatementofa
personwhomaydeposethatheoverheardthe
conversationbetweenthetwopersonsandwhatthey
actuallystatedhadbeentaperecorded.Weighttobe
giventosuchevidencewilldependontheother
factorswhichmaybeestablishedinaparticularcase.
Itcannotbeheld,andithasnotbeensoheldbythe
Courtbelow,thattherecordoftheconversationona
taperecordisnotadmissibleinevidenceforany
purposeandtherefore,weneednotsayanythingmore
aboutit.
115] TheLd.advocateforaccusedNo.2placedrelianceonthe
judgement reported in 1993 (3) Bom.C.R.99, in case of
ChandrakantRatilalMehtaV.s.StateofMaharashtra,toshowthat
thetaperecordedevidence,ifitistobeacceptable,mustbesealatthe
earliestpointoftimeandnotopenedexceptunderorderofthecourt.
But,Ld.Advocatenotsubmittedthefulltextofthejudgment.Heonly
submitteduptoPage112,butstillIhavegonethroughthefulltextof
judgment,butinmyhumbleview,thefactsandcircumstancesofthis
case,aretotallydifferent,thaninthecitedcase. Sinceitisnotthe
case of accused No1. and 2 that by opening the cassettes,
Investigatingofficer,tamperedwiththesame,inmyhumbleview,the
citedjudgmentcannotbemadeapplicable.
116] The Ld. advocate also placed reliance on the judgment
reportedinMh.L.J.(Cri.)2011(3)incaseofNileshDinkarParadkar
V/s.StateofMaharashtrawhereinitisobservedbytheHonourable
LordshipofApexCourtthattheCourthavetoextremelycautious
in basing a conviction purely on the evidence of voice
identification.
117] Butinacaseinhand,theobservationsandthefindings
givenbymearenotbasedonlyonthetaperecordedevidence,buton
thestrengthoforalcorroboratedevidenceofthewitnesses.Therefore,
thecitedjudgementisnotapplicableandhelpfultotheaccused.
118] Inthecaseinhand,itisnotthecrossexaminationofany
witnessthattheytamperedwiththecassettes.Therefore,itisnotthe
defence of accused No.1 and 2 that there is tampering. At this
juncture, I would like to mention that even if, the tape recorded
evidenceinthiscase,iskeptasideforawhile,thereissufficientoral
evidenceavailableonrecord.
119] It is also not at all fatal to the case of prosecution that
Investigatingofficerpreparedthecopiesofcassettes.Consideringthe
weatherinMumbaihumidityanditwasthemonthofMay,inorderto
preservethecassette,theactofinvestigatingofficerisnotatallfound
objectionable.
120] Therefore,ithasbeenprovedbytheprosecutionbeyond
allreasonabledoubtthatevenon26/05/2000attheresidenceofthe
complainant, accused No.2 on telephone, demanded bribe amount
from the complainant, for accused No.1, for showing favour of not
suspendinghimincaseof'SairajBarandRestaurant'.
ACTUALDEMANDANDACCEPTANCEOFBRIBEAMOUNT
ON26/05/2000INTHECAROFACCUSEDNO.2
121] Itisfurtherthecaseoftheprosecutionthattaperecorder
wasattachedinthearmpitofthecomplainant.Thebagofcurrency
notesofRs.2,10,000/wasalsoinhispossession.Thepanchwitness
(P.W. 4) was also with him. Trapping team alongwith both panch
witnesses, the complainant and the ACB officer proceeded towards
ShivajiPark,area,Mumbai,asaccusedNo.2calledthecomplainant
onthesameplacewheretheyhadmetonpreviousoccasion.Asitis
recordedandmentionedinthetranscriptthat || rrl ==| +| |==
r||i.e.infrontofMahimPoliceStation.AfterreachingnearMayor's
Bunglow,theyhiredtwotaxisandproceededtowardsMahimPolice
Station.ThishasbeendeposedbyP.W.3,P.W.4andP.W.20.(P.W.3/16,
Paragraph 18, P.W.4/7, P.W.20/9, Paragraph 7). This has not been
disputedbythedefence.Itisfurtherthecaseoftheprosecutionthat
thereaftercomplainantandpanchNo.1i.e.P.W.3andP.W.4alighted
from the taxi. They proceeded towards Maruti Car 800, which was
standinginfrontofMahimPoliceStation,facingtowardsBandraside.
Atthattime,thecomplainantswitchedonthetaperecorder.Thishas
beendeposedbythecomplainant(P.W.3/16last5linesofparagraph
18 started on Page No.16, by P.W. 4/9, paragraph 7, P.W.20/9
paragraph7).ItisnotdisputedbyaccusedNo.2thatonthatday,he
was sitting in the car and said car was standing in front ofMahim
PoliceStation,facingtowardsBandra.AccordingtoP.W.3,P.W.4both
ofthemreachednearthecar. P.W.3greetedthepersonsittinginthe
cari.e.accusedNo.2,thereafterbothofthementeredinacar.The
complainant occupied the left side rear seat in the car and P.W.4,
PanchaNo.1occupiedfrontseat,besidesthedriver'sseatandcarwas
proceededtowardsBandra.
122] AccordingtothecomplainantandpanchNo.1(P.W.3and
4) the conversation took place between the accused No.2 and the
complainantinthecar.Thesaidconversationwasabouttheorderof
suspensionofthecomplainantandduringthesaidconversation,the
complainantnarratedtoaccusedNo.2(P.W.3/7)thathehasbrought
theamount.
123] IntheevidenceofP.W.4,whowastheeyewitnessofthe
saidincidenceithasbeendeposedbyhimthathewasintroducedby
thecomplainantwithaccusedNo.2ashisbrotherinlaw(=r| ).The
witness deposed the entire conversation between P.W.3 and accused
No.2(PW4/10,paragraph8).ThesaidconversationdeposedbyP.W.4
iscorroboratingtheevidenceofP.W.3anditstranscriptproducedat
Exh.39.Thesaidtranscriptisintwoparts.Firstpartofthetranscript
atExh.39isthetranscriptofrecordingoftheconversationbetween
thecomplainant(PW.3)andaccusedNo.2inthecar.This exhibited
documentisshowingthatthesaidconversationwasverifiedbythe
then PredecessorofthisCourt(NowHighCourtJudgeHonourable
Justice Nalawade), and it is observe that, this part could not be
compareasnotclearlyaudible
124] The evidence of P.W.4 is showing that the conversation
tookplacebetweenthecomplainantandtheaccusedNo.2whichwas
actuallyheardbyhiminthecarandhasbeendeposedbyhim.
125] It is further deposed by P.W.3 that thereafter on the
instructionsofaccusedNo.2,thevehiclewasstopped. Theaccused
No.2 talked on mobile by saying following words, n:, =l =||
4|=|, n|r4|+| +|+ :Aftersometime,accusedNo.2saidonhismobile
that n = =|| 4|= r| r, | 4++ |l = +|n r ,furtherconversation
betweentheaccusedNo.2andpersonattheotherendofthephone
hasbeennarratedbyP.W.3(atPageNo.17ofP.W.3)startingfromlast
threelinesandcontinuedonnextpageatP.W.3/18).Intheevidence
ofP.W.4,hehasdeposedinasimilarmanner(paragraphNo.8Page
4/10 continued on Page 4/11). According to the complainant and
panchNo.1,theyidentifiedthevoiceofaccusedNo.2. Further,the
voiceofaccusedNo.2,wasalsoidentifiedbyP.W.7,ChandanShinde,
P.W.12 Subhash Shankar Ubale. In the evidence of these two
witnesses,theydeposedthattheywereknowingaccusedNo.2,ashe
usedtovisittheofficeofCentralRegiontothechamberofaccused
No.1,andtheyhadanoccasiontotalkwithhim.
126] The Ld. advocate appearing for accused No.2, strongly
objectedonthetaperecordedevidenceofthesewitnesses.
127] In my view, even if the tape recorded evidence dated
26/05/2000, regarding the conversation took place between the
complainantandaccusedNo.2inthecarpriortotheacceptanceof
bribe amount is ignored, but the oral evidence of the complainant
cannot be ignored. Further, there is no reason to disbelieve the
evidenceofP.W.4,whowastheindependentwitnessandforthefirst
time,metaccusedNo.2onthatday. Therefore,thereshouldnotbe
any reason for P.W.4 to depose falsely against accused no.2. Thus,
according to me, even if the tape recorded evidence is ignored, as
mentionedabove,oralevidenceofthesetworeliablewitnessescannot
bediscarded.TheLd.advocateappearingforaccusedNo.2alsotried
topointoutthediscrepanciesfromtheevidenceofP.W.3andP.W.4in
regardtotheconversationrecordedintheirdeposition.
128] Thisargumentmadebyld.Advocateforaccusedno.2,is
not acceptable to me for the reason that both the witnesses have
deposedaftertheperiodofabout1011yearsoftheoccurrenceofthe
incidence,therefore,appearingofsuchminordiscrepanciesisnatural.
In fact, there is no discrepancies in their deposition, there is no
contradictionsintheirdepositiontoshowthat,thesaidconversation
nottookplacebetweenthecomplainantandaccusedNo.2inthecar.
Inviewofthis,Ireachtotheconclusionthatafterenteringintothe
carofaccusedNo.2,conversationtookplacebetweenthecomplainant
andaccusedNo.2,andfurtheraccusedNo.2,calledfromhismobile
andtalkedthewordswhicharedeposedbyP.W.3,P.W.4.
129] According to the prosecution witness (P.W.3), after
completingthesaidconversation,accusedNo.2bygesturedemanded
the bribe amount. Thereafter, complainant opened the carry bag
which he was having with him and by his right had taken out the
bundleofRs.10,000/andproducedbeforeaccusedNo.2,andsaid
=|| n|r4, rr|| =r+|+| . AccusedNo.2,acceptedtheamountby
hisrighthand.Thereafter,complainanttakenoutfourbundles,each
bundle containing 100 currency notes of Rs 500/ denominations,
totalamountofRs.2lakhs,byhisrighthandandofferedtoaccused
no.2,accusedNo.2acceptedthesaidamountbyhisrighthand.
130] In the deposition of P.W.4, it has been deposed by P.W.4
thatthenbygestureaccusedNo.2demandedbribeamount.PIKokil
tookoutonebundleofcurrencynotesfromthepolythenebagwhich
hewascarryingandhandedoverthesaidbundleofcurrencynotesto
Lodha. Immediatelyafterthat,otherbundlesweretakenoutbythe
complainantbyhisrighthandandhandedoverthesametoaccused
No.2.AccusedNo.2,acceptedthesaidamountbyhisrighthandand
PIKokilsaid r , =a ||| - =|=| n|r4|n|al
131] The Ld. Advocate pointed out from the examination in
chiefofthesetwowitnessesthatthereismajorcontradictioninthe
evidenceofthesetwowitnesses. Healsoarguesthatpanchwitness
whowassittingonthebucketseat,nexttothedriver'sseat,andafter
fasteningtheseatbelt,thepersonsittingonthesaidseatcannotmove
anditisdifficultforhimtowatchwhatishappeningontherearseat.
ThisargumentofLd.Advocateisnotacceptabletome. Evenafter
fasteningtheseatbeltbyapersonsittingonthebucketseat,hecan
easilywatchwhatishappeningontherearseatandspeciallyonthe
right side of rear seat. As this argument of Ld. advocate is not
acceptable to me. The evidence of P.W.4 on this point of actual
demand by gesture and handing over of currency notes of Rs.
2,10,000/ to the accused No.2 by the complainant cannot be
discarded. ThereisnocrossofthewitnessP.W.3 onthepointthat,
accused No.2 demanded bribe amount by gesture. This evidence of
thewitness(P.W.3)remainsunchallengedandtherefore,thereisno
reason to disbelieve this portion of evidence and to reach at the
conclusion that accused No.2 had demanded the bribe amount by
gesture,Iamalsonotacceptingtheargumentmadebyld.Advocate
on the point that, complainant, P.W. 3 and panch witness, P.W. 4 in
theirdepositionnotstatedthesamegestureasmadebyaccusedno.2.
(evidenceP.W.3/18,last4linesandP.W.4/11Para9)Thisargument
madebyld.Advocateisnotsustainableasboththewitnesseshave
deposedthatbymakinggestureofthumbandindexfinger,accused
no.2,demandedbribeamount.Thegesturebythumbandindex
fingerwhichisusuallymadebymovingthethumboverindexfingeris
wellknowntoeveryone,thatthisgesturesuggest'money'.
132] TheLd.advocatealsoraisedastrongobjectionthatthere
was nooraldemand madebyaccusedNo.2 in the car and thereis
contradictioninthegesturementionedbyP.W.3andP.W.4. Sofaras
the demandmade by gestureby accusedNo.2isconcerned,inthis
regard,Iamplacingrelianceonthejudgementreportedin,
1991 Cri.L. J.2097 in case of Dattatraya Krushnaji
JoshiV/s.StateofMaharashtra (Para15)whereinitisheldbythe
Hon'bleLordshipofBombayHighCourtthat
Thereappearstobenosuchprecedentandwhat
has to be appreciated is that the making of the
demand has to be a matter of understanding not
between the accused and any third person but the
personwhodemandsandthepersonwhoproceeds
topayorwhoispay.
133] InthecrossexaminationofP.W.3andP.W.4,sofarasthis
issueofgesturemadebyaccusedno.2,priortohandingovercurrency
notesofRs.2,10,000/tohim,bythecomplainant,itissuggestedto
thewitnessesthatShri.MedhepanchNo.1,occupiedtheseatinsuch
a position that he could see and hear the conversation. It is not
suggestedtothiswitnessthatnodemandwasatallmadebyaccused
no.2.ItisalsonotsuggestedeventotheP.W.4.Therefore,deposition
ofthesetwowitnesses,thatbygestureaccusedNo.2demandedbribe
amountfromthecomplainantfoundtrustworthy.
134] It is further the case of the prosecution, through P.W. 3
that,afteracceptingtheentireamountofRs.2,10,000/,accusedNo.
2takenoutonewhitecolournapkinandkeptthesaidnapkinonhis
thighandkeptthebundlesonthenapkin,thenaccusedNo.2checked
thebundlescasuallybyhisbothhands,thereafterhetookonebundle
ofcurrencynotesofRs.10,000/andkeptthesameunderhisright
hip. Then hetooktheemptypolythenebagfromthecomplainant,
andkept 4bundlesofRs.2 lakhsinsidethesaid carrybagand by
foldingthesaidcarrybag,keptthesamewithhim.(P.W.3/19).
135] In the evidence of P.W.4 (Page 12), the panch No.1,
narratedthat,afteracceptingtheentireamount,theaccusedNo.2,
keptonewhitecolournapkinonhislapandkeptthebundlesonthe
saidnapkin.Thenhecheckedthebundlescasuallybyhisbothhands.
HethenliftedonebundleofcurrencynotesofRs.10,000/andkept
the same belowhis right side lap. Then he took out polythene bag
fromthecomplainantandkepttheremaining4bundlesofcurrency
notesinthatpolythenebagandwrappedthesame.
136] InthecrossexaminationofP.W.3,itisthedefenceofthe
accusedNo.2(P.W.3/47)thatduringtheconversationinMarutiCar,
Complainantkeptthebundlesofcurrencynotesonthelapofaccused
No.2, and due to such action of complainant, accused No.2, was
frightenedandpushedthebundlesofthecurrencynotesbyhisboth
hands inside the car. The complainant after keeping the bundles of
currencynotesonthelapofaccusedNo.2,heinstructeddrivertostop
thevehicleandhurriedlyalightedfromthevehicle.
137] It is suggested to P.W.4 (P.W.4/34) that he was not in a
positiontoseewhatishappeningontherearseatofthecarandafter
that Kokil had not handed over the bundles of currency notes to
accusedNo.2andthathefalselydeposedthataccusedNo.2keptthe
said bundle of currency notes on one napkin and under his lap
furtheraccusedno.2,checkedthesaidbundlesofcurrencynotesby
hisbothhandsandkeepingofonebundlebyaccusedNo.2andother
bundlesinpolythenebagandholdingthepolythenebagbyaccused
No.2.Thedefenceraisedbytheaccusedno.2,thatbundleswerekept
bythecomplainantonthelapofaccusedNo.2,isnotsuggestedtothis
witness.
138] That P.W.4 is claiming himself as an Eye witness to the
incidence.Thedefencewhichwasraisedinthecrossexaminationof
P.W.3 ought to have been suggested to the witness (P.W.4) but the
demandmadebygesturehasnotdisputedinthecrossofP.W.3and
defenceraisedbyaccusedNo.2,isnotsuggestedtoP.W.4.
139] TheLd.AdvocateforaccusedNo.2oneveryissueinvolved
inthiscase,arguesontheconductandquestionablecharacterofthe
complainant(P.W.3),evenontheissueofdemandandacceptanceof
bribeamountbyaccusedNo.2,hearguesthesamepointwhichIam
dealingseparatelyasmentionedinearlierparagraphs.
140] The evidence of P.W.4 who was the eye witness of the
incidenceandcertainlytheindependentwitnesscannotbediscarded.
In fact, there is no reason for the said witness to deposed falsely
againstaccusedNo.2whenhemethimforthefirsttimeonthatday.
Further, there is no previous enmity between the said witness and
accusedNo.1and2soastodeposefalselyagainstthem.Thereisalso
noreasonforthiswitnesstodeposefalselyandinfavorofprosecution
caseunderthepressureofAntiCorruptionBureau.
141] In the statement of accused No.2 recorded u/s.313 of
Cr.P.C., he totally denied the said incidence. The written statement
filed by accused no.2 is at Exh.103. It is his defence that the
complainanttookoutsomecashfromthepolythenebagsinhishands
and putitonwhite napkinwhich hehadkeptonhisthighsashis
usual habit. Smelling some mischief at the hands of Mr. Kokil, he
pushedoutthecash,putbyMr.Kokil,onhisnapkinwithsomeforce
andasaresult,theentirecashwhichMr.Kokil,hadputonhisnapkin
fellonthefootboardofhiscarnearhis(AccusedNo.2)leg.
142] In the statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C, while answering the
QuestionNo.457that,
Q.457 IthasfurthercomeintheevidenceofP.W.20ShriKohe
thatwhile getting down from the car, he noticed one
bundle of currency notes at the right rear side of
thecar.HethenaskedpanchaNo.2Khandare to pick up
thesaidbundle,whatyouhavetosayaboutit?
Ans: Itisfalse.Thebundleofthecurrencynoteswerelyingon
theleftsidefootboardofthecar.
143] ThisanswergivenbyaccusedNo.2istotallycontraryto
his own written statement. According to his written statement,
bundlesofthecurrencynotesfellonthefootboardofhiscarnearhis
leg. He was sitting on the right side of the car. Therefore, by any
stretch of imagination, the defence raised by accused no.2 in his
writtenstatementthat,entirecashfallonfootboardofthecarnear
hislegs,isnotappearingastrueandcorrect.Ifapersonsittingatthe
rightsidepushedthebundleofthecurrencynotesbyhisbothhands,
thebundleofcurrencynoteswillnotfallontheleftsideofthefoot
board but the bundles will fall near his leg. In this regard, the
documentatExh.48ie.posttrappanchanamaisalsoimportant.The
contentsof thepanchanama are corroboratingwiththeevidenceof
P.W.3 and 4, (internal page No.7 and 8 of the panchanama ). The
contentsofpanchanama cannotbeignoredasthepanchanamawas
immediatelyrecordedafterhappeningoftheincidence.
144] TheLd.advocateforaccusedNo.2stronglyobjectedthat
in the entire panchanama, it is not mentioned that P.W.20
InvestigatingofficerinquiredwithP.W.3andP.W.4.Intheevidenceof
boththesewitnesses,theyhavenotdeposedthatinvestigatingofficer
conductedenquirywiththemabouttheincidenceofactualtransferof
moneyfromthecomplainanttotheaccusedNo.2. Thisargumentof
Ld. Advocate is not sustainable as in the evidence of both these
witnesses,theydeposedtheentirehappeninginrespectoftransferof
trapamount.Inthetrappanchanama,Exh.48thesaidincidencehas
beenmentioned.Therefore,itisnotsignificantthattheinvestigating
officer had not inquired with P.W.3 and P.W.4 about the actual
happeningoftheincidence.Thisargumentisnotsustainableforthe
reason that when accused No.2 alighted from the vehicle, he was
holdingpolythenebaginhisrighthand.Thebagwassame,described
inthepretrappanchanama.
145] Thedefenceraisedbyaccusedno.2,isalsonotacceptable
forthereasonofscientifictestconducted.IthasbeendeposedbyP.W.
4(P.W.4/17Paragraph12),thattheMaruticarwascheckedunder
ultravioletlampfrominside.Atthattimeononeportionoftheright
rare seat of the car, the effect of anthracine powder was noted.
Further similar is the deposition of P.W. 20 ( P.W. 20/14, paragraph
11).Thereisnocrossofthesetwowitnessesontheimportantissue
ofcheckingofthecarfrominsideunderultravioletlampandnoting
ofeffectofanthracenepowderontherightrareseatcoverofthecar.
It needs to be noted that similar are the contents are in the
panchanama.(Exh.48internalpage13)Theevidenceofthepanch
witnessisthuscollaboratedbyP.W.20andalsowiththecontentsof
panchanama. If the defence of accused no. 2, is accepted for the
movementthentheeffectofanthracinepowderonthefootboardof
thecaroughttohavenoted,butsucheffectofanthracinepowderhas
notbeennotedwhencarwascheckedfromtheinside. Furtheritis
alsonotthedefenceofaccusedno.2,thatfootboardwasnotatall
checked or effect of anthracine powder was noted on it, but
deliberatelynotmentionedinthepanchanama.
146] SofarasthecallmadebyaccusedNo.2toaccusedNo.1
from the car, prior to the acceptance of amount is concerned,
admittedly,theentryofthiscall isnotshowninCDRproducedat
Exh.84,callspriortothatandafterthatareshownintheCDR.The
Ld. Prosecutor examined P.W.18 Rajesh Bandodkar, who in
examinationinchiefdeposedthatonlyfortechnicalreasonthesaid
entries are not shown in the CDR of 'Orange Company'. It is
suggestedtothiswitnessonbehalfofaccusedno.2,thatduringthe
relevantperiod,notechnicalerrorwasreportedinMSCDepartment.
147] Exh. 84 is an admitted document, not showing the said
call. But as deposed by this witness, that all these processing was
doneautomaticallyandmechanically.Therefore,thepossibilitywhich
thewitnesshaddeposed,thatduetosometechnicalproblem,thatcall
was not recorded , cannot be over ruled. Though the call is not
recordedintheCDRbuttheoralevidenceofthewitnessesi.e.P.W.3,
P.W.4,cannotbediscarded.TheevidenceofP.W.9,ShriSayedAther,
who was Personal Assistant of accused No.1 during the relevant
periodisalsocorroboratingtotheevidenceofPW3,andPW4,that
thecallwasmadebyaccusedno.2,fromthecartoaccusedno.1.In
his deposition (P.W.9/2, Paragraph 3) he deposed that, on
26/05/2000, he was present in the office. At about 03.00 p.m.
accusedNo.2calledonlandlinephoneofCentralRegionalofficeron
telephoneNo.3782636,hetransferredthesaidcalltoaccusedNo.1.
Inthecrossexaminationofthiswitness,itissuggestedtothiswitness
onbehalfofaccusedNo.1thatnoentryofincomingcallandoutgoing
callwasmadebyhimtowhichthiswitnessexplainedthatwhenthe
officerisavailable,makingofsuchentryisnotnecessary. Itisalso
suggested to this witness that on 26/05/2000, no such call was
receivedonofficephoneandhehadnottransferredthesaidcallto
accused No.1 and he falsely deposed. Hence, evidence of P.W.9
remains unchallenged. For the first time while answering the
QuestionNo.447intheStatementu/s.313ofCr.P.C.,accusedNo.1for
the first time denied that such phone call was received and was
connectedbyP.W.9inhischamber.
148] On behalf of accused No.2, similar type of suggestions
weregiven.ThiswitnessalsoidentifiedtheentryatExh.65(inarticle
'B'register)ina'TelephoneDiaryRegister'maintainedintheofficeof
CentralRegion,showingthetelephoneNumberofaccusedNo.2.Itis
suggested to this witness that he has falsely deposed on the say of
ACB.ItneedstobenotedthatthiswitnesswasworkingasPersonal
AssistantofaccusedNo.1,whowastheofficerofhighercadreinthe
PoliceDepartment,thereshouldnotbeanyreasonforthiswitnessto
depose falsely against the accused No.1, when no such reasons are
broughtonrecordbybothaccused.Eventhereis noreasonforthe
witnessestodeposefalselyonthesayofACB.Itisnotthecaseofthe
defencethatthewitnesseswereandarefacingsomeinquiryortrial
initiated by ACB. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the
evidenceofthesewitnessesthough,theentryofcallisnotreflectedin
Exh.84. Thus, merely not noting outgoing call from the mobile
numberofaccusedNo.2,intheCDRatExh.84doesnotfataltothe
case of prosecution and the oral evidence of P.W.3 and P.W. 4,
corroboratedbyP.W.9whohadactuallytransferredthecallofaccused
no.2toaccusedNo.1isfoundtrustworthy.Theoralevidenceofthe
independentwitnesseswhohavenopreviousenmitywithaccusedNo.
1and2cannotbediscardedonlyforthereasonthatthesaidcallwas
not registered in mechanically process. The statement of P.W.9 was
recorded on same day i.e. 26/05/2000. Hence, for the above
mentionedreasons,theevidenceofP.W.3,P.W.4andP.W.9,isfound
quitereliable,onthepointthatthecallwasmadebyaccusedNo.2,in
theofficeofaccusedNo.1,fromhismobilewhentheywereincarand
theconversationtookplacebetweenhimandaccusedNo.1.
149] TheLd.advocatesappearingfortheaccusedNo.1and2
alsosubmittedthatitisalacunaeintheinvestigationthatthesaidcall
isnotrecordedintheCDRatExh.84.Bothofthemhavesuggested
thatitoughttohavebeendonebytheinvestigatingofficerbypressing
button of 'redial' from the mobile of accused No.2, to verify as to
whethersuchcallwasmadebyaccusedNo.2,toaccusedNo.1.When
infactaccusedNo.2,wasapprehendedbythemandhismobilewas
also seized. This argument made by the Ld. Advocate is not
sustainableforthereasonthatitwasnotproperonthepartofthe
investigating officer to redial the button of the mobile, to make it
confirmthatthecallwasmadebyaccusedNo.2toaccusedNo.1.The
mobilehandsetofaccusedNo.2,wasseizedonthatday. Makingof
such call by the investigating officer in that case would certainly
amounttotamperingwiththepieceofevidencei.e.mobilehandset,
which was not done by the investigating officer. Therefore, the
argumentisnotacceptableandsustainable.Whenthesufficientoral
evidenceisavailableonrecord,thereisnonecessitytofindoutthe
evidence which can be procure from the mechanically process.
Further, theinvestigatingofficerwasnotsupposedtocountercheck
theoralstatementgivenbythewitnessesonthesameday.
150] Itisalsoneedstobenotedthatwhenthemobilehandset
wasseizedbytheInvestigatingofficer,asperthesuggestionsofthe
Ld. Advocate, he failed to redial the button of the mobile so as to
verifythecallbyaccusedNo.2toaccusedNo.1.fornotdoingsothis
canbereasonfortheinvestigatingofficerthatonthatday,hewasnot
aware that in future, there is possibility of not finding the said
number or call in the CDR of the particular date. Therefore, this
argumentisnotsustainable.
POSTTRAPPROCEDURE
151] IntheevidenceofP.W.3andP.W.4,ithasbeendeposedby
them that after the acceptance of bribe amount by accused No.2,
immediatelypredeterminedsignalwasgiven,atthattime,carwas
standing in front of 'Kondur Furniture' (P.W.3/20) (P.W.4/13).
Thereafter, raiding party members alongwith accused and his car
proceeded towards Bandra Police Station. In the deposition of the
complainant,henarratedthat,whenaccusedNo.2,alightedfromthe
vehicle,hewasholdingcarrybaginhisrighthandandwhitenapkinin
hislefthand.ThecarwasinspectedbypanchNo.2,Shri.Khandareand
bundleofRs.10,000/wasnoticedonthe rightsideoftherearseat.
PanchShri.Khandare tookthebundleofcurrencynotesinhischarge
(P.W.3/20,Paragraph19).IntheevidenceofP.W.4,hedeposedthat,
Atthattime,Lodhawascarryingpolythenebagcontainingcurrency
notesinhisrighthandandwhiteturkishnapkininhislefthand(P.W.
4/13,Paragraph4)andfurtherthebundlesofcurrencynotesofRs.
10,000/ was found on the foot board of the car and panch Shri.
Khandarepickedupthesaidbundleofthecurrencynotes.
152] IntheevidenceofP.W.20,ShriKohehedeposedthat,the
person who was apprehended was holding white napkin in his left
hand and one white polythene bag in his right hand, while getting
downfromthecar,henoticedonebundleofcurrencynotesonthe
rightsideofrearseatofthecarandpanchShri.Khandareasperhis
instructionspickedupthesaidbundle(P.W.20/11,Paragraph8).The
evidenceofthesethreewitnessesisconsistentonthepointthatwhen
accusedNo.2alightedfromthevehicle,hewasholdingpolythenebag
containing bundles of currency notes in his right hand and white
turkish napkin in his left hand and further the bundle of currency
notesofRs.10,000/wasfoundinsidethecar.Theonlydiscrepancies
intheevidenceofP.W.3,P.W.4andP.W.20isthataccordingtoP.W.4,
bundleofcurrencynotesofRs.10,000/wasfoundonthefootboard
ofthecarandaccordingtoP.W.3andP.W.20,thebundleofcurrency
notes was found on the right side of the rear seat of the car. The
evidenceofthesethreewitnessescannotbediscarded,speciallythe
evidenceofP.W.3,onlyforthereasonthatinatrapcase,roleofthe
complainant is that of an 'Accomplice, when his evidence is
corroboratedbytheevidenceofP.W.20.Itneedstobenotedthatthe
said bundle of Rs. 10,000/ was found inside the car owned and
possessedbyaccusedNo.2andthatissufficient.Nomuchimportance
canbegiventotheminorcontradictionappearingintheevidenceof
P.W.4andP.W.3andP.W.20abouttheplacefromwherethebundleof
Rs.10,000/wasfound.
153] TheLd.Advocateforaccusedno.2alsoarguethatitisnot
possible for anyone to spread napkin on his own thighs by holding
currency notes in one hand. This argument is not acceptable as it
needstobenotedthattherewere4bundlesofcurrencynotesofRs.2
lacks,and1bundleofRs.10,000/consistingofcurrencynotesofRs.
100/denomination(Article6A)showingthatcurrencynotesarenew
andbundlesarethinandonecaneasilyholdallthefourbundlesin
onehandatatime.Thereforeitdependuponpersontopersonthat
howthepersonmakeuseofhisbothhandsorofonlyonehandfor
spreading the napkin. The ld. Advocate also try to point out by
making gesture ( by moving his hand , palms and fingers towards
down) that one can not hold the currency notes in the hand if
directionofhispalmandfingersistowardsdown.Thisargumentis
notacceptabletomeforthesimplereasonthatifthehandisturned
towards upward direction the currency notes as mentioned by the
witnessescaneasilybehold.
154] TheLd.AdvocateappearingforaccusedNo.2suggestedto
thewitnessthatitwaspossiblefortheaccusedtothrowthebagwhen
hewasapprehended.Healsoarguesonthesimilarpointthatitwas
easy for accused No.2 to throw away if he was apprehended by
trappingteam.ThisevidenceandargumentofLd.Counselcannotbe
acceptedforthesimplereasonthatwhenaccusedwasapprehendedat
thattime,policeofficerswerealsopresent.Theaccusedwhoishighly
educated person i.e. Chartered Accountant, cannot be said that
unaware about the law and throwing the bag containing currency
notesbyhimisalsooneoftheimportantpieceofevidenceagainst
him. In the statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., it is the defence of the
accusedNo.2thatatthattime,hewasonlyholdingwhitenapkinin
his hand and he was holding the same till he was brought to the
Bandra Police Station. In this regard, the contents of panchanama
alsoneedstobeseen. Inthepanchanama,itismentioned(Internal
Page9)thatLodhawasseenholdingthesaidwhitecolournapkinin
hislefthandandthepolythenebaginhisrighthandandbundlesof
currencynteswasfoundattherightsideoftherearseatofthecar,
whichwaspickedbypanchaNo.2Khandare.
155] Inthiscase,itisnotthedefenceoftheaccusedNo.2that
panchaNo.1(P.W.4)andinvestigatingofficer(P.W.20)triedtoinvolve
himfalselyinthecaseforsomeparticularreason.Inthiscase,even
theevidenceofindependentwitnessi.e.P.W.4needstobeconsidered
as trustworthy witness. The evidence of P.W.20 who acted as
investigatingofficer,alsocannotbediscardedforthereasonthat,he
was the Investigating officer of the case and he was interested in
successful trap. The deposition of both these witnesses are found
quitenormalandnatural.Thereisnoreasonformetodisbelievethe
deposition of these witnesses that when the accused No.2 alighted
fromthevehicle,hewasholdingcarrybagcontainingcurrencynotes
inhisrighthandandwhiteturkishnapkininhislefthand.
156] IntheevidenceofP.W.3,P.W.4,bothofthemdeposedthat
after keeping the marked currency notes in a polythene bag by
accusedNo.2,hewipedhisfaceandneckbythesaidwhiteturkish
napkin. In the evidence of pancha witness (P.W.4) and evidence of
InvestigatingOfficer(P.W.20),theydeposedthatthefaceandneckof
theaccusedNo.2alsoimitatedinbluishshining. Thereisnoreason
todisbelievethispieceofevidence.
SCIENTIFICTESTOFFINDINGOFEFFECTOF
ANTHRACINEPOWDERONTHEARTICLES
157] It isnarrated byP.W.4thatintheBandraPoliceStation,
ShriKoheinstructedthecomplainanttowaitoutsideandnottotouch
anywhere.ThesearchofaccusedNO.2wasconductedunderUVL.At
thattime,followingeffectswerenotedonbothhands.
I]Bluishglowwasnotedonthefaceandneck.
Ii] Bluishglowwasalsonotedontheshirtatrightside
cuffofsleeve.
Iii]Bluishglowwasalsonotedontheportionofthelapof
pant.
Iv] Bluish glow was also noted on his white turkish
napkin.
158] SimilaristhedepositionofP.W.20. Itisalsocaseofboth
thesewitnessesthatsaid portionreflectingthelightbluishglowon
thepant,shirtandnapkinofaccusedNo.2wasthenencircledbythe
investigatingofficer.Admittedly,notingofbluishglowonthefaceand
neckofaccusedNo.2isquitenatural,asaccusedNo.2wipedhisface
andneckbythewhiteturkishnapkinonwhichthesaidnoteswere
keptbyhim.
159] Itisthedefencethatthecomplainantkeptthecurrency
notesonthewhiteturkishnapkin,byforceandhepushedthesaid
currencynotesandcurrencynotesfalldown,ifitishisdefencethat
hepushedthenotes,thennotingofeffectonhis bothhands,palms
and fingers is not possible. If he pushed down the notes, effect of
anthracene powder is only expected on the palms and not on the
phalanges. If this defence is accepted, then there is no reason for
notingeffectofanthracenepowderonthecuffofsleeve,entirefront
portionofshirtandtheportionofhispantfromwaisttoknee.Noting
ofeffectofanthracenepowderontheportionofhispantfromwaist
to knee is corroborating the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, that after
accepting the amount , accusedNo.2keptone white colour napkin
andkeptthebundlesonthenapkin.ThisevidenceofP.W.3andP.W.4
iscorroboratingthenotingeffectofanthracenepowderontheportion
ofpant(Article10)mentionedaboveandalsoontheshirt(Article9).
Themarkingontheshirtandpantareseenbyme. Theevidenceof
thecomplainantandpanchaNo.1iscorroboratingthesaidmarking.
The Article 9 is clearly showing encircled portion of the shirt of
accusedNo.2,frontportionandbothsleeves. Thesaidmarkingwas
done during the post trap panchanama. Therefore, there is no
possibilityoftamperingwiththesaidmarkingorthatsaidmarkings
were done later on. Encircled portion on the white napkin is
corroboratingtheevidenceofP.W.3andP.W.4.
160] It is argued by the Ld. advocate for accused No.2 that
notingofeffectofanthracenepowderontherightportionofthepant
ofaccusedNo.2isshowingthathisdefenceistruethathepushedthe
bundlesandbundleswerefallonthefootboardofthecarnearhisleg.
Thisargumentisnotacceptableandsustainable,inviewofthat,effect
ofanthracenepowderwasnotedontherightsidelegportion(Knee
tobottom)andnotonfrontsideofthelegportionofArticle10,Pant.
The said encircled portion is marked as Article 17. Thus, defence
raised by the accused is not supporting the evidence available on
recordandalsohisowncase.
161] It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 kept
one bundle of currency notes below his right thigh, when he was
sitting on the right side of the rear seat of the car. This has been
deposed by P.W.3 and P.W.4 but on the thigh portion on the right
backside, the effect of anthracene powder was not noted and such
effectisnotedontheportionbelowit.ItisarguedbytheLd.Advocate
for accused No.2 that if it is the case of prosecution that smeared
currencynotesofRs.10,000/werekeptbytheaccusedNO.2under
his right thigh, then the effect of anthracene powder should have
noticedtherealso.Onlybecausetheeffectofanthracenepowderis
notnotedontherightbackthighportionofthepant,(whichisnoted
ontherightlegportionbelowknee),theevidenceofthewitnesses
cannotbediscarded.Thenotingofeffectofanthracenepowderunder
UVLonbothsleevesofShirtandthighportionofpantandonwhite
napkin of accused No.2 is clearly showing that he accepted the
marked currency notes cautiously and handled the same prior to
keepingthesaidcurrencynotesonhiswhitenapkin.
162] IthasdeposedbyP.W.4andP.W.20thathetookoutbundle
ofcurrencynotesfrompolythenebag(P.W.4/16).InevidenceofP.W.
20 that he deposed that Pancha Medhe checked the contents of
Polythenebagandtookoutthesaidbundles(P.W20/21).Nocrosson
behalfofaccusedNo.2conductedonthisportionofdepositionofP.W.
4andP.W.20.Hence,remainsunchallengedandthereisnoreasonto
disbelievesaidevidence,thatwhenthepolythenebagwasopenedin
BandraPoliceStation,thecurrencynoteswereremovedfromthesaid
bag.
163] ThecurrencynoteswerealsocheckedunderUVL,atthat
time,effectofanthracenepowderwasnotedonit.Itsnumberswere
tallied and were found similar as noted earlier, during pre trap
panchanama, which clearly shows that the trap amount was
transferredfromthecomplainanttotheaccusedNo.2.Inviewofthe
provisionofSec.114(a)ofIndianEvidenceAct,1872
Sec.114Courtmaypresumeexistenceofcertainfacts
TheCourtmaypresumetheexistenceofanyfactwhichit
thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common
course of natural events, human conduct and public and private
business,intheirrelationtothefactsoftheparticularcase.
Illustrations
TheCourtmaypresume
(a)Thatamanwhoisinpossessionofstolengoodssoonafterthe
theftiseitherthethieforhasreceivedthegoodsknowingthemto
bestolen,unlesshecanaccountforhispossession.
164] TheaccusedNo.2isdutyboundtoexplainthepossession
ofpolythenebag andcurrencynotes foundinit,immediatelyafter
hisapprehension.Buthisexplanationisnotfoundprobable.
165] Article 6A has been examined under ultraviolet light in
presence of Ld. advocate for accused by passing order (Roznama
dated 22/03/2013). The Ld. Advocate for accused No.2 strongly
objectedforcheckingthebagunderultravioletlampbyme,forthe
reasonthatnoencircledportionsaremarkedonthebagandfurther
thatitamountstocollectionofevidencebytheCourt.
166] The objection by Ld. Advocate is not suitable for the
followingreasons:
I)ThatthebaghasbeenidentifiedbyP.W.3,P.W.4and
P.W.20.ItismarkedasArticle6A
II) To verify that though the encircled portion are not
markedonit,whethertheeffectofanthracenepowder
wasandisthereornot,asdeposedbyP.W.20.
III)ItisjustlikeadocumentexhibitedinEvidenceofthe
witness.Toverifythecontentsofdocument,document
canberead,suchaspolythenebagcanalsobe
examined/checkedunderultravioletlamp.
IV)CheckingofpolythenebagunderUltravioletlamp,in
anymannerdoesnotamounttocollectionofevidence,
butinmyviewitisveryessentialtoverifythebag
underultravioletlamptofindoutwhetherP.w.20had
deposed truthorotherwise.Itisjustlikea
verification/perusingofexhibiteddocument.
167] The effects of anthracene powder has been noted on,
insideandalsoonhandleportionofthebaginformofsomespotof
bluishshining, stillaftertheperiodof12years.Thenotingtothat
effecthasbeenmentionedintheRoznama.
168] Thatonthepolythenebag(Article6A)bluishglowwas
notedinsideandoutsideofthebag.Admittedly,thereisnomarking
onthesaid polythenebag(Article6A).P.W.4hasnotdeposedabout
thenotingofanthracenepowderonthesaidbag,whereasP.W.20,had
deposedaboutthenotingofanthracenepowderonthesaidbag.Only
becauseitisnotdeposedbyP.W.4, thateffectofanthracenepowder
was noted on polythene bag, deposition of P.W.20 cannot be
disbelieved.Itneedstobenotedthatnotingofanthracenepowderon
thesaidpolythenebaghasbeenmentionedinposttrappanchanama
(Exh.48).Italsoneedstobeborneinmindthatthesaidpanchanama
was done on the same day i.e. on 26/05/2000 Pancha No.1(P.W.4)
deposedafteraboutlapseof11yearsandsuchminoromissionsinhis
evidence cannot adversely affect the case of prosecution. The
evidence of Investigating officer on this point needs to be believed
because it is not the case of the defence that investigating officer
applied anthracene powder on the polythene bag with intention to
falsely implicate the accused No.1 and 2 and further, there is no
reasonfortheinvestigatingofficertodosuchact.
169] Thenotingofeffectofanthracenepowderonthethigh
portionofthepantisclearlyshowingthataccusedNo.2handledthe
currency notes cautiously for a reasonable time prior to spreading
white napkin on his thigh. In my view, effect of scientific test is
showingcautiousacceptanceofamountbyaccusedNo.2,andthat,he
hold the said currency notes smeared with anthracene powder for
sufficienttime,priortokeepingthesaidcurrencynotesonthewhite
napkin.ThedefenceraisedbytheaccusedNo.2,isnotsupportingthe
evidenceonrecord.Thisdefenceisalsonotacceptableforthereason
thattherewasnoreasonforthecomplainanttohandoversuchhuge
amounttoaccusedNo.2,withoutanyreasonortherewasnoreason
for the complainant to implicate falsely accused No.1 and 2, by
handing over the amount to accused No.2 even if it was not
demandedbyhim.Thereisalsonoreasonthatwhythecomplainant
wouldselectaccusedNo.2only,tofalselyimplicateboththeaccused.
TheevidenceonrecordisclearlyshowingtheinitiativeofaccusedNo.
2,bycallingthecomplainantforthefirsttime.
170] Intheentirecrossexamination,inthestatementu/s.313
ofCr.P.C.andthewrittenstatementfiledbytheaccusedNo.2,thereis
no explanation that how and why the effect of anthracene powder
wasnotedonthefrontportionofhisshirtandonbothsleeves.There
isalsonoexplanationfornotingtheeffectofanthracenepowderon
thethighportion (betweenkneeandwaist)ofthepantofaccused
No.2.AllthesecircumstancesareclearlyindicatingthataccusedNo.2
accepted the bribe amount having full knowledge about the said
amount. ThedefenceoftheaccusedNo.2thatthecomplainantkept
theamountonthewhitenapkinonhisthighisnotacceptable,only
forthereasonthat,thetracesofanthracenepowderisnotedonthe
thighportionofhispantanditisnotexplainedbyaccusedNo.2,as
requiredu/s.114(a)ofIndianEvidenceAct,1860.
MEETINGOFCOMPLAINANTWITHACCUSEDNO.1
INHISCHAMBER,AFTERHANDINGOVERBRIBEAMOUNT
TOACCUSEDNO.2.
171] Itisalsothecaseoftheprosecutionthataftertestingthe
hands of the complainant under UVL, he attended the office of
accused No.1, on the same day. In this regard, the complainant
deposedduringhisexaminationinchief(Page3/22),accordingto
the complainant, conversation between him and accused No.1 was
recordedincassette.
172] ThisdepositionofP.W.3isshowingthat hemetaccused
No.1inhisoffice.HeintroducedhimselfasPoliceInspectorKokil,of
BycullaPoliceStation,andalsothathehadbeentheretorequestnot
tosuspendhiminthematterof'SairajBarandRestaurant'. Further,
accordingtothecomplainant,heinformedtheaccusedNo.1thatas
perhisinstructions,hemetLodhaaccusedNo.2.AccusedNo.1said.
+|| =||, r|+l rr|=| 4|=|= +l rrl r||+c + = onwhichcomplainant
repliedthatLodhacalledhim. AccusedNo.1saidrrl r|+| +|rl +n
|:= +| ?onwhichcomplainantsaidr| |:=,bygesture,accusedNo.
1pickedupthereceiverandsaid,Sayyed,GetmeLodhaandfurther
uttered, If mobile is switched off, find out where he is and
thereafter,heaskedthecomplainantrrl =| =l 4r||.
173] ThevisitofthiswitnesstotheofficeofaccusedNo.1.on
that day has been corroborated by P.W.9, Sayyed Ather, who was
PersonalAssistantofaccusedNo.1.Accordingtothiswitness,onthat
day,intheafternoonKokilhadbeentotheofficeofaccusedNo.1.He
entered in hischamberandwhen Kokil was inchamber ofaccused
No.1,accusedNo.1directedhimtocontact'Lodha'immediately.
174] SofarastheexaminationinchiefofP.W.3isconcerned,
this portioninexaminationinchiefhasnotbeenchallengedinthe
crossexaminationonbehalfaccusedNo.1.Itisonlysuggestedtothis
witnessthatwhetherhehadvisitedatanypointoftimepriortothat
officeofCentralRegion. Whatisthedistancebetweengateetc.
(P.W.3/36).NocrossofP.W.3isconductedbyboththeaccusedonthis
importantpieceofevidence.Hence,thedepositionofP.W.3andP.W.9
onthevisitofP.W.3totheofficeofaccusedNo.1onthedayoftrap
remainsunchallenged.ItisalsonottheargumentofLd.Advocatefor
accusedNo.1thatcomplainantnotvisitedthechamberofaccusedNo.
1onthatday. Butheisdisputingtheconversationnarratedbythe
complainant.
175] Thetranscriptofconversationis2
nd
partofExh.39which
wascomparedwithactualrecordingbythethenPresidingOfficerof
thisCourt(NowHighCourtJudge,HonourableJusticeNalawade)
andwasfoundcorrect.Ihavecarefullygonethroughthe2
nd
partof
Exh.39.Theconversationdeposedbycomplainantandmentionedin
transcriptisnotinthesamesequence.Butitisshowingthataccused
No.1voluntarilyaskedthecomplainant,whencomplainantdisclosed
the name of 'Lodha'. 'Have you given some money to him'. The
conduct of accused No.1 is also showing that he had not stated to
complainant that he is not going to suspend him, but whenever
complainantutteredthewordincidenceof'SairajBar' andabouthis
suspension,accusedNo.1said,:=|+, al+ r, = :=|| r
176] Thoughthesamesequenceisnotfoundindepositionof
P.W.3,,butforthatreason,hisdepositiononconductofaccusedNo.1,
cannotbediscarded. Itneedstobebearinmindthatcomplainant
deposed after the period of about 1011 years from the incidence.
Therefore,deposinginsamesequenceisnotexpected.
177] In the statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., while answering
QuestionNo.193andonwards,itisnotdisputedbyaccusedNo.1that
on that day, P.W.3 visited his office. In the statement u/s. 313 of
Cr.P.C.hedeniedtheconversationbetweenhimandthecomplainant.
Heonlyadmittedthathepickedupthetelephonereceiverandtold
Sayyed,getmeLodhaandfurther,ifthemobileisclosed,findout
whereheis?.Hefurtheralsonotdisputedthatheutteredthewords
tothecomplainant,rrl =|, =l 4r||.Inthewrittenstatementfiledat
Exh.101, there is no explanation by accused No.1 to the said
incidence.
178] TheconductofaccusedNo.1isverymuchrelevantinthis
case. AccusedNo.1isnotdisputingthatthecomplainantvisitedhis
chamber, but he is disputed the conversation between him and the
complainant. Itneedstobenotedthateveniftheadmissionofthe
accusedNo.1istakenintoconsideration,thatheonlypickedupthe
phoneandutteredthewordContactLodhaimmediately, andso
on.Thenduringtheentirecase,thereisnoexplanationbyaccused
No.1thatwhatwasthereasonforhim,whenthecomplainantwasin
his chamber to contact with Lodha. Further, the evidence of the
complainantwhoisthesolewitnessonthisissuecannotbediscarded.
Whenitisnotchallenged inthecrossexaminationofaccusedNo.1
that the accused No.1 uttered, rrl r|+| +|rl +n |:= +| ?. The
unchallenged testimony of the complainant is clearly showing that
accusedNO.1wasawareaboutthedemandandplayedanactivepart
inextractingbribeamountfromthecomplainantthroughaccusedNo.
2 by designing the conspiracy. The conduct of the accused after
complainantsaidHemetLodha,asperhisinstructionsaskingabout
rrl r|+| +|rl +n |:= +| ? is also relevant. This conduct of the
accusedNo.1isnothitbyanyprovisionoflawbecauseatthattime,
accusedNo.1wasnotinpolicecustodynortherewasanypressureon
him. Further, on that day, the FIR was also notagainst him. This
conductofaccusedNo.1 certainlycomeswithinthefourcornersof
theprovisionofSec.8ofIndianEvidenceAct. Itisalsoneedstobe
noted that when the complainant informed him that he had been
thereinconnectionwiththeincidenceof'SairajBarandRestaurant'
andmaderequestfornotsuspendinghim.TheaccusedNo.1hadnot
saidanythingthatheisnotempoweredtodoso.Ontheotherhand,
hesaid,rrl =|, =l 4r||.TheentireconductoftheaccusedNO.1is
totallyagainsthispleaofinnocence.ThisconductofaccusedNo.1is
furtherconfirmedthathealongwithaccusedNo.2designedcriminal
conspiracytoextractbribeamountfromthecomplainantbyputting
himunderthefearofsuspension.
179] The evidence produced on record oral as well as
documentary, the scientific test of noting of effect of anthracene
powderontheclothesofaccusedNo.2,nonexplanationbyaccused
No.1andaccusedNo.2ontheimportantpartofdepositionisshowing
theirinvolvementincommissionoftheoffence. Thus,itwasproved
byprosecutionthataccusedNo.2hadacceptedthebribeamountof
Rs.2,00,000/foraccusedNo.1andRs.10,000/forhimselffromthe
complainant,fornotsuspendinghiminconnectionwiththeincidence
of'SairajBarandRestaurant', inviewoftheconspiracyhatchedby
them. The evidence on record is further, sufficient to prove the
charges levelled against accused No.1 u/s. 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and against accused No.2 u/s.12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. Sec.120B of Indian Penal
Code,1860.
180] Muchimportancecannotbegiventotheissuethatwhere
the bundle of currency notes of Rs.10,000/ was found, whether it
wasfoundontheseatoronthefootboardofthecar.Theevidenceof
P.W.4 and P.W.20 is showing that effect of anthracene powder was
notedontherightsideportionoftherearseatcoveroftheMaruti800
Car,whichclearlyshowsthattheamountwaskeptonthesaidportion
of the seatcover (Article 11). In the entire cross examination and
Statementu/s.313ofCr.P.C.thereisnoexplanationbyaccusedNo.2
fornotingtheeffectofanthracenepowderontherightrearseatcover
ofthecar.Italsoneedstobenotedthatthebundleofcurrencynotes
ofRs.10,000/wasfoundinsidethecar,whichwasadmittedlyowned
andpossessedbyaccusedNo.2on26/05/2000.
PRESUMPTIONU/S.20OFTHEPREVENTIONOFCORRUPTION
ACT,1988
181] Inviewoftheabovediscussion,Ireachtotheconclusion
that accused No.1and2 hatched criminal conspiracy to extract the
bribe amount from the complainant. Accused No.2 on behalf of
accused No.1 demanded the said bribe amount and also cautiously
acceptedthesame. TheconductofaccusedNo.1onthedayoftrap
was also found very much relevant and showing his cautious and
activeinvolvementin demandingthebribeamount. Themotiveof
both the accused in this case is that they impressed upon the
complainantthatheisgoingtobesuspendedinthematterof'Sairaj
BarandRestaurant'andtoavoidsuspension,hewillhavetopaythe
amountofbribetoaccusedNo.1and'Mehanatana' toaccusedNo.2.
The discussion on this point is already recorded in the earlier
paragraphs. Therefore, the motive of accused No.1 and 2 has also
beenprovedbytheprosecution.
182] Since it is proved by the prosecution that accused No.1
and 2 demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 2,10,000/
from the complainant, presumption u/s.20 of Prevention of
CorruptionAct,1988whichisapresumptionoflawneedstoberaise.
Now, the accused No.2 has to explain that how and why smeared
currencynoteswerefoundinhispossession,howandwhytheeffect
ofanthracenepowderwasnotedonhisbothhandsandonhisclothes
andontheseatcoverofcar.Theexplanationofaccusedisrequiredas
Probableone.
183] AccusedNo.1isalsoboundtoexplainthatwhyheasked
thecomplainant,whenthecomplainantwasinhischamberthat,rrl
r|+| +|rl +n |:= +| ?,butnotatallexplained.
184] As discussed in earlier paragraphs, that there is no
explanation by accused No.2, for the noting of effectof anthracene
powder on his clothes and on his hands, clearly indicates that he
acceptedthebribeamountfromthecomplainant.Thedefencewhich
has been raised by him that the complainant kept the marked
currencynotesonthewhitenapkinandhepushedthesaidnotesby
forceandnotesfallonthefootboardofthecar,onleftside,isnotat
allfoundprobableinthefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase. Ifhe
pushed the notes kept on white napkin by all force, there is no
explanationfornotingofeffectofanthracenepowderonfrontportion
of the shirt and on the thigh portion of the pant and also on his
phalanges.Byanystretchofimagination,thisexplanationisnotatall
acceptable,asnoonecanpushthecurrencynotescontainingthefour
bundlesofcurrencynotesofRs.500/each,withsuchaforcetofallon
the othersidei.e. left sideof footboardofthe car. At themostthe
currencynoteswillfallonrightsideitself.
185] TheexplanationofferedbyaccusedNo.2,thattheentire
amountwasfoundonthefootboardofthecar,isalsonotacceptable,
in view of the evidence of pancha no.1(P.W.4) who is independent
witness, the complainant (P.W.3) and Investigating Officer (PW.20).
TheLd.advocateforaccusedNo.2triedtopointoutthatthereare
discrepancies, omissions and contradiction in the evidence of P.W.3,
P.W.4 and P.W.20. According to me, such minor omissions,
contradictionsanddiscrepanciesarenotatallfataltothecaseofthe
prosecution and occurrence of such minor discrepancies are very
natural as all the witnesses have deposed after lapse of about 910
years of occurrence of the incidence. Such discrepancies are not so
importantandmajor,sothatcanvitiatethetrialagainsttheaccused
No.1and2.
186] Inviewoftheabovediscussion,Ireachtotheconclusion
thatthereisnoprobableexplanationofferedbyaccusedNo.1and2,
which can be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Hence, failing to give explanation is also one of the strong
circumstance against accused No.1 and 2 as accused No.1 has also
failedtoexplainandtocrossthewitnessonthepointthatwhyhehad
utteredthewords rrl r|+| +|rl +n |:= +| ?andfurtherContact
Lodha immediately. These words spoken by accused No.1 clearly
indicatinghisinvolvementindemandingthebribegoestoshowthat
hewasawareabouttheconversationbetweenthecomplainantand
Lodha,inviewofthecriminalconspiracyhatchedbybothofthem.
187] Thus, in view of the abovediscussion, I amof the view
thattheprosecutionhasprovedbeyondallreasonabledoubtthaton
23/05/2000, accused No.2 demanded the bribe amount from the
complainantforaccusedNo.1andfurther,acceptedthebribeamount
foraccusedNo.1on26/05/2000,infurtheranceofdemandmadeon
23/05/2000, asconspiracyhatchedbythemandthataccusedNo.1
wasalsoverymuchawareaboutthesaiddemandandacceptanceof
amountbyaccusedNo.2.
EVIDENCEOFEXPERTWITNESS(P.W.17)
188] Itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthaton23/5/2000,when
thefirstdemandwasmadebyaccusedNo.2,withthecomplainant,in
hiscar,accusedNO.2,handedoveronechittohim(Exh.97)onwhich
accused No.2, mentioned his name, address and telephone number.
Further, during the investigation, the Investigating officer collected
specimen signature and handwriting of accused No.2 (Exh.98) and
forwardedthesametotheHandwritingExpert.
189] ItisstronglyarguedbytheLd.AdvocateforaccusedNo.2
thatsaidchitandspecimenhandwritingwasnottakenintopossession
by the investigating officer, in presence of pancha witnesses.
Therefore,thereisnoevidenceofindependentwitnessesavailableon
recordtoshowthat,saidchitwasproducedbythecomplainant,in
presenceofpanchasandspecimenhandwritingofaccusedNo.2was
collected. The said chit is exhibited document, the specimen
handwritingisExh.98. Thespecimenhandwritingwascollectedon
27/05/2000bytheInvestigatingOfficer.TheaccusedNo.2hadtotally
deniedhishandwritingonExh.97.
190] TheevidenceofexpertwitnesshasbeenrecordedatExh.
85asP.W.17,whodeposedinhisexaminationinchiefthatheisexpert
inexamininghanwriting.Hereceivedthepapersandthedocuments
such as, chit and specimen handwriting (Exh.97, Exh.98) etc. After
examiningthedocument,hepreparedhisownnotesandreachedto
the conclusion that Exhibit 'Q1 to Q5', 'Q7 to Q10' (marked by
witnessforhisownexamination)arewrittenbythewriter,whohas
writtentheencircledwritingandsignaturemarkedas 'S1toS19',
'N1','N2'.
191] Perused Exh.97 and Exh.98. Perused Q1 which is the
portiononthechitprovidedbyaccusedNo.2tothecomplainanton
23/05/2000 and also Exh.S1, as specimen handwriting of accused
No.2 on Exh.98. This witness also filed on record his notes of
reasoning ( Exh. 90 )on the basis of which, he reached to the
conclusionthathandwritingatExh.97isofthesamewriter,whohad
writtentheExh.98.
192] In the cross examination of this expert witness, it is
suggested to the witness that the opinion was given by him as
requestedbyACB.Thissuggestion giventothewitnessisnotatall
properasthereisnoreasonforthisindependenthandwritingexpert
witnesstogiveopinion aspertheadviseandrequestofACB,ashe
hasnothingtodowithACB.Inthisconnectionthedepositionofthe
complainantthaton23/05/2000whenhemetaccusedNo.2,inhis
car, and accused No.2, provided him one chit on which his name,
address and telephone number was mentioned by him, cannot be
disbelievedforthesimplereasonthatonthatday,afterreceivingcall
fromaccusedNo.2,heproceededtomeethimandonthatparticular
day, therewasnoreasonforthecomplainanttodeposefalsely,that
accusedNo.2handedoverhimonechit.Exh.97.Further,thereisno
reasonfortheinvestigatingofficertodeposefalselythathecollected
specimen handwriting of accused No.2. It is not the case of the
accused No.2, that the said specimen handwriting was taken by
pressurizing him by the investigating officer. The evidence of the
complainantonthispointofhandingoverthechitbyaccusedNo.2,
also corroborated by the evidence of expert witness, who by giving
reasonshasreachedtotheconclusionthatitisthehandwritingofthe
sameperson.
193] Theevidenceofexpertwitnessalsocanberelieduponin
view of the provision of Sec.47 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore,
there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. This
independentwitnessalsoneedstobebelieveforthereasonthatthis
witnesshasveryfairlystatedinhisreportsubmittedatExh.89,that
regardingQ6,andS11toS19,N1andN2,'nodefiniteopinioncan
beexpressedonthesemarkedexhibitsforwantofsufficientidentifying
characteristicsinthequestionedsignatures'. Thisopiniongivenbythe
independentwitnessisshowingthathehadnointentiontosupport
anyone'scase,andwhateveropinionframedbyhimatExh.89washis
independent andneutral opinion.Therefore,hisevidenceneedsto
betrusted.
CONDUCTANDCHARACTEROFTHECOMPLAINANT
194] The Ld. advocate appearing for accused No.1 and 2
vehemently argued that 'the conduct and character' of the
complainant is questionable in this case. His evidence cannot be
acceptedastrustworthyandreliable. TheLd.advocateforaccused
No.2, triedtopointoutfromtheexaminationinChiefofP.W.3,that
thiswitnesshadnotsharedtheinformationwithhiscolleaguegiven
tohimbyaccusedNo.2,abouthissuspension. Further,hehadnot
conducted the enquiry with his colleague about the power of
suspension of Police Inspector. The Ld. advocate for accused No.2,
pointedoutfromthecrossexaminationofthewitnessthathehadnot
refusedthedemandmadebyaccusedNo.2,ashewasafraidofhis
suspension and that no action has been taken against him in the
matterof'SairajBarandRestaurant'tilltodayandfurtherthat,hehad
notinformedthedemandmadebyaccusedNo.2,foraccusedNo.1to
DCPShriDateorconductedanyenquirywithSayyed,P.A.ofaccused
No.1. Inthefurthercrossexaminationofthiswitness,onbehalfof
accusedNo.2,theincidence occurred in hisservice tenureafterthe
occurrenceoftheincidenceinvolvedinthiscase,werepointedoutto
him. It is also pointed out to him that Departmental Enquiry is
pending against him in the matter of Musafir Khana . That he is
transferredtoAmravatiandhehadnotjoinedtheir.TheLd.advocate
foraccusedNO.2alsoplacedrelianceonthejudgementreportedin
1976 Cri.L.J. 295 in case of Sat Paul V/s. Delhi Administration,
Supreme Court, to show that the evidence of this witness whose
conductandcharacterissuspicious,cannotbeconsideredasreliable
andtrustworthy.
195] I have gone through the cross examination of P.W.3
conductedonbehalfofboththeLd.Advocates.Itneedstobenoted
that the incidence which is the subject matter of this case, had
occurredonwardsfrom23/05/2000anditconcludedon26/05/2000.
Thesuggestiongiveninthecrossexaminationofthiswitnessabout
his service record, pending enquiry case of Musafir Khana, are
occurredmuchafterhappeningoftheincidenceinvolvedinthiscase.
TheLd.AdvocateforaccusedNo.2vehementlyarguedthat
Antecedents ofthecomplainantaresuch,forwhichhisevidence
cannotbebelieved.
196] In this connection, dictionary meaning of the word
AntecedentisgivenasAthingthatcomesbeforeanotheranda
person's ancestors (Oxford English Dictionary). The dictionary
meaning of the word is clearly suggesting that antecedents means
occurred prior to the incidence, in question. Therefore, incidences
pointedoutbytheLd.AdvocateforaccusedNo.2,cannotbetermed
as Antecedent of P.W.3 in connection with this case. Further,
departmentalenquiryinitiatedagainsthimorwhateveristheresultof
departmentalenquiry, hasnonexuswiththe incidence, asallthese
areoccurredafterthegapofnearabout9yearsfromtheincidence,
involved in this case. The Ld. advocate had not pointed out any
incidence to show the questionable character and conduct of the
complainant(P.W.3),occurredpriortothehappeningoftheincidence
inthiscase.Therefore,theargumentmadebytheLd.advocateisnot
atallacceptabletome.
197] The entire conduct of the complainant of not discussing
thedemandmadebyaccusedNo.2,foraccusedNo.1,withanyofhis
colleagueisquitenatural.Whythepersonlikecomplainant,whowas
the Police Inspector, will discuss the issue with each and every
colleague and also with the Personal Assistant of accused No.1 ?,
whenaccusedNo.1wasofficerofmuchhighercadrethanhim.Thus,
not discussing this issue with anyone by the complainant, is found
quitenaturalinthefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase.Theconduct
ofthecomplainantisfoundreliableandtrustworthy.Inthiscase,he
cannot be termed as An Accomplice. Further, his evidence is
corroboratedbytheevidenceofindependentwitness(P.W.4)andthe
evidenceofInvestigatingOfficer(P.W.20). Infact,nothinghasbeen
brought on record to show that with intention to implicate falsely
accused No.1 and 2, the complainant had taken initiative and had
furtherinvolvedthemfalsely.
198] In the reported judgement, on which reliance has been
placedbyLd.AdvocateforaccusedNo.1,whereinitisobservedby
Hon'ble Apex Court that, There is no absolute rule that the
evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without
corroborations. Butwherethewitnesseshavepoormoralfibre
and have to their discredit a load of bad antecedents which
indicatestheirhavingapossiblemotivetoharmtheaccusedwho
wasanobstacleintheirimmoralactivities,itwouldbehazardous
toacceptthetestimoniesofsuchwitnesseswithoutcorroboration
oncrucialpointsfromindependentsources.
199] Inmyview,intheinstantcase,thecorroborationonthe
crucialpointisavailableonrecord.
200] Therefore, the judgment cited by the Ld. Advocate for
accusedNo.2,isnotatallapplicableinthefactsandcircumstancesof
thiscase.AccusedNo.1and2thus,totallyfailedtoestablishthebad
antecedentofthecomplainant.Therefore,theargumentmadebythe
Ld.Advocateneedstoberejected.
201] In the judgment reported in (1995) 3 Supreme Court
Cases351,inthecaseofM.O.ShamshuddinV/s.StateofKerala,
the Honorable Apex Court discussed the two categories of the
complainantinParagraphNo.12ofthejudgement
1. Whenthereissuchademandbythepublicservantfroma
person who is unwilling, and if to do, public good, he
approachestheauthorityandlodgedthecomplaint,thenin
orderthatthetrapsucceeds.Hehastogivemoney,inorder
tothat.
2. There could be another type of bribe giver who is always
willing to give money in order to get his work done, and
havinggottheworkdone,hemaysentacomplainant.Here
is'particepscriminis'inrespectofthecrimecommittedand
thus,isanaccomplice.
Thus there are grades and grades of accomplice and
therefore, a distinction could as well be drawn between cases
whereapersonoffersabribetoachievehisownpurposeandwere
oneisforcedtoofferbribeunderthethreatsoflossorharm,thisis
tosayundercoercion.
202] The distinguishing features as observed by Honorable
ApexCourt,ifmadeapplicabletothecaseinhand,thecomplainant,
inthiscasefallsundersecondcategoryi.e.Onewhoisforcedtogive
bribeunderthethreatsoflossorharm.Therefore,inmyview,inthe
instantcase,thecomplainantcannotbetreatedas'anaccomplice'.His
soletestimonycanbebelieved,butstillsufficientevidencehasbeen
broughtonrecordthroughP.W.4,P.W.20andalsointhedepositionof
P.W.9,tocorroboratethedepositionofthecomplainant.Thus,thecase
laws cited by the Ld. advocates for accused No.1 and 2 which are
mentionedbelow,inmyview,arenotatallapplicableinthiscase.
i]AIR1975SupremeCourt1432
SitaRamV/s.StateofRajasthan
ii](1979)4SupremeCourtCases526
PanalalDamodarRathiV/s.StateofMaharashtra(Pg.38to41)
iii] 1993SCC(Cri.)456
ShantilalKashibhaiPatelV/s.StateofGujrat
iv] 2005ALLMR(Cri)1157
Ninajis/o.NivruttiWaghV/s.StateofMaharashtra
v] 2005(2)Bom.C.R.(Cri.)940
PandharinathShelkeV/s.StateofMaharashtra.
Onallabovementionedcitedcases,theLd.advocatesforaccusedNo.
1 and 2 placed reliance to show that the sole testimony of the
complainantisaccomplice,cannotbeacceptedwithoutcorroboration.
203] Asdiscussedinaboveparagraphs,intheinstantcase,the
sufficientcorroborationisavailableonrecord.Further,theevidenceof
P.W.3complainantisfoundtrustworthyandreliable.Therefore,inmy
humble view, the facts and circumstances of the cited case and the
caseinhandaretotallydifferent,hence,thecitedjudgmentsarenot
atallhelpfultothebothaccused.
i] AIR1977SupremeCourt170
RabindraKumarDeyV/s.StateofOrissa
ii] (1979)4SupremeCourtCases725
SurajMalV/s.State(DelhiAdministration)
iii] 1987(Supp)SupremeCourtCases266
G.V.NanjundiahV/s.State(DelhiAdministration)
iv]LAWS(SC)1990210SupremeCourtofIndia
SepoyHaradhanChakrabartyV/s.UnionofIndia.
v] 2002ALLMR(Cri.)1106
Madhukars/o.GulabraoKhadseV.s.StateofMaharashtra.
vi] (2006)1SupremeCourtCases401
T.SubramaniyanV/s.stateofTamilNadu
vii] (2009)15SCC200
StateofMaharashtraV/s.DnyaneshwariLaxmanRaoWankhede
viii] (2010)4SCC450,
BanarsiDassV/s.StateofHaryana
204] ItisobservedbyHon'bleApexCourtthatmererecovery
of money from appellant is not sufficient to prove the charge of
prosecutionagainstappellant,inabsenceofanyevidencetoprove
payment of bribe or to show that appellant had voluntarily
acceptedmoney.Therefore,theHon'bleApexCourtwaspleasedto
acquitaccused.
205] Thefactsofthecaseinhandaretotallydifferentthanthe
citedcase. There issufficientevidence of independent witness like
panchaNo.1(P.W.4)isavailableonrecord.Evidenceofpanchaisalso
corroborating the evidence of Complainant. Further the I.O. also
provedthecircumstances.Inthecaseinhand,theamounthasbeen
recoveredfromthepossessionofaccusedNo.2.Thus,inmyhumble
view,inthecaseinhand,theprosecutionhassuccessfullyprovedthe
cautiousdemandandacceptanceofthebribeamount.Therefore,the
citedjudgmentarenotatallapplicableinthefactsandcircumstances
ofthiscase,andspeciallywhen,thedemanddated23/05/2000,and
demand dated 26/05/2000, has been proved by the prosecution by
adducingcogentandreliableevidence.
206] TheactofaccusedNo.2inthiscaseisclearlycoveredwith
thefourcornersofthedefinitionof'Abetment'.
ThedefinitionofAbetmentasmentionedinSec.107of
I.P.C.isreproducedbelow
Sec.107 AbetmentAperson abetsthedoingofathing,
who
FirstInstigatesanypersontodothatthing;or
Secondly......
Thirdly Intentionally, aids, by any act or illegal
omission,thedoingofthatthing.
Explanation'....
207] The accused No.2 firstly by contacting complainant, and
by communicating message of accused No.1 to him, and lastly by
acceptingbribeamountonbehalfofaccusedNo.1andRs.10,000/for
himselfasa'Mehantana'aidedandabettedoffenceofacceptingillegal
gratification.Therefore,theaccusedNo.2committedtheoffenceu/s.
12ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988.
208] Inviewoftheabovediscussion,IanswerthePointNo.3
and 6 in the affirmative and concludes that, the prosecution has
proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the ingredients of Sec.7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, against Accused No.1, and u/s.12 of
Prevention of Corruption Act ,1988 against accused No.2 r/w. Sec.
120BofIndianPenalCode.
AstoPointNo.4
209] Asitisprovedbytheprosecutionbeyondallreasonable
doubtthattheaccusedNo.2demandedthebribeamountforaccused
No.1,conspiracyofit,washatchedbybothofthem.Itisalsoproved
bytheprosecutionthatsaidbribeamountwasacceptedbyaccused
No.2cautiouslyfromthecomplainant.Further,theconductofaccused
No.1asdiscussedinaboveparagraph.Itisclearlyshowingthatactive
rolewasplayedbyaccusedNo.1inanillegaltransactiontookplace
betweenaccusedNo.2andcomplainant.Hisconductofsayingrrl
=|, =l 4r|| isclearlyindicatingthathemisusedhisofficialpositionas
aGovernmentServantforshowingfavourtocomplainant,asalleged,
fornotsuspendinghimwithanintentiontoextractpecuniarybenefit
fromhim.
210] TheconductofaccusedNo.1alsofurtherconfirmsthathe
had active participation in extracting bribe amount from the
complainant, by misusing his official position, when after giving
positiveanswerbythecomplainanttothequestionHaveyougiven
himsomemoney? TheaccusedNo.1notraisedanyobjectionand
notevenquestionedthecomplainantastowhyhehadgivenmoney
toaccusedNo.2.AccusedNo.1whowasthehigherrankofficerinthe
Police Department, has misused his official position as Government
Servant. When the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable
doubt the criminal conspiracy hatched by accused No.1 and 2, the
acceptanceofamountofRs.2,00,000/byaccusedNo.2foraccused
No.1, acceptance of amount of Rs.10,000/ by accused No.2 for
himselfas'Mehantana' fromthecomplainant,subsequentconductof
accused No.1,consideringalltheseimportant circumstancesagainst
accused No.1, with accused No.2, in my view, it is proved by the
prosecution beyond allreasonable doubtthattheaccusedNo.1 had
misused his official position as 'Additional Commissioner of Police',
CentralRegion,Mumbai, inordertoextractthebribeamountfrom
thecomplainant.IftheaccusedNo.1wasnotinterestedorwasnot
havingintentiontoextracttheamountfromthecomplainant,inthat
case, he should not have asked the complainant, rrl =|, =l 4r||
insteadof uttering these words, it was expected from him that he
shouldhavesaid,Iamnotthecompetentauthoritytosuspendyou
andfurther,whateverislegal,canonlybedoneinsteadofthis,he
utteredthesewordsthatrrl =|, =l 4r||.AccusedNo.1alsoasked
thecomplainantthatrrl r|+| +|rl +n |:= +| ?
211] Thisconduct of accused No.1 is clearly showing that he
wasexpectingtheamountfromthecomplainantandafterconsenting
bythecomplainant,heassuredthecomplainantinthewordsthat
rrl =|, =l 4r||. In fact, there was no reason for accused No.1 to
discusstheissueofthesuspensionofthecomplainantwithhimand
further to assure him. Further, there was also no reason for the
accused No.1 to ask the complainant that whether he had given
moneytoaccusedNo.2,whencomplainantdiscussedwithhimabout
theincidenceof'SairajBarandRestaurant'. Theevidenceavailable
onrecordissufficienttoheldthattheaccusedNo.1hascommitted
theoffenceu/s.13(1)(d) r/w.Sec.7ofthePreventionofCorruption
Act,1988 which is punishable u/s.13(2) of the Prevention of
CorruptionAct,1988r/w.Sec.120BofIndianPenalCode, Hence,I
answerthePointNo.4intheaffirmative.
AstoPointNo.5
CHARGEOFFENCEU/S.201OFINDIANPENALCODE,1860,
AGAINSTACCUSEDNO.1
212] TheaccusedNo.1inthiscasehasalsobeenchargedwith
theoffenceu/s.201ofIndianPenalCode,1860.Itisallegedagainst
him that he destroyed the evidence i.e. page written by him i.e.
recommendations in the notesheets and he burnt the same and
further,hetriedtodestroytheevidencei.e.visitor'sslipwhichwere
throwninwastepaperbasket.
213] In this connection, theprosecution have examinedthe
witnessesinordertoprovethechargeu/s.201ofIndianPenalCode.
Theprosecutionhasdutyboundtoprove
I]Committalofanoffence;
II]PersonchargedwiththeoffenceunderSection201musthavethe
knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been
committed.
III]personchargedwiththeoffenceundersection201,I.P.C.Should
havecauseddisappearanceofevidence;
IV]theactshouldhavebeendonewiththeintentionofscreeningthe
offenderfromlegalpunishment.
214] To establish the said charge against accused No.1, the
prosecutionexaminedP.W.6,P.W.7andP.W.10.Intheexaminationin
chief of P.W.6, who was 'Office Superintendent', during the relevant
period,attachedtotheofficeofCentralRegion,Mumbai.Hedeposed
that (Page6/1),howthefileofnotesheetwashandledbyaccused
No.1. In further deposition (P.W.6/8), he narrated that how the
proposedpunishmentwaschangedbypresentaccusedNo.1andhow
the paper of notesheet was changed by accused No.1. It is also
narratedbythis witness thatasper thedirections ofaccusedNo.1,
theyallmentionedthedateoftheirearliernotingon29/05/2000.
215] ThiswitnessfurtherdeposedthatthereafteraccusedNo.1
foldedtheremovedpaperofthenotesheet. Then,thethesaidpage
wasreplacedbyhimandhepressedthecallbell,Orderlyofaccused
No.1,enteredinthecabinandaccusedNo.1,directedhimtoproduce
onematchbox.Onematchboxwasthereafterhandedovertohim,
accusedNo.1,enteredintohisantichamberwiththefoldedpaperand
match box. He returned after 5 minutes, at that time, paper of
notesheet was not in his hand. This witness also identified the
replacepageofthenotesheetatExh.56.Healsoidentifiedthedate
mentionedoniti.e.26/05/2000andfurtherdeposedthatthisdate
26/05/2000wasmentionedbyhimon29/05/2000asperdirection
ofaccusedNo.1. Inthecrossexaminationofthiswitness,itisonly
suggestedtohimthathedeposedfalsely.
216] IntheExaminationinChiefofP.W.7,hedeposedthatShri
PatoleandShriShroff(P.W.6)wereinthecabinofaccusedNo.1and
heprovidedmatchboxondirectionofaccusedNo.1. Itissuggested
tohim thathe hasfalselydeposedagainstaccusedNo.1 asper the
suitability of the case of ACB. In the evidence of P.W.7, it is also
deposedbythiswitness(onPage7/4Para7)thaton27/05/2000,the
accusedNo.1attendedhisoffice,thoughusuallyhewasnotattending
theofficeon2
nd
and4
th
Saturday.Hecalledhiminsideinthecabinat
4.30p.m.andaskedhimtocollectthepiecesofpaperfromdustbinto
burn the same. As per his directions, this witness taken the basket
containing pieces of paper, outside and handed over to Shri Akbar
Mohd. Hanif Jamadar Muslim Jamadar (P.W.10) and informed him
that Additional Commissioner of Police, directed to burn the same.
P.W.10wasnothavingmatchbox.Thiswitnessprovidedmatchboxto
him. It is not challenged in the cross examination that on
27/05/2000, accused No.1 directed to burn the pieces of paper in
wastepaperbasket.
217] In the evidence of P.W.10, Shri Akbar Mohd. Hanif
JamadarMuslim,whowasattachedtotheOfficeofCentralRegion,in
the office of accused No.1. He deposed in the similar manner as
deposed by P.W.7 that on 27/05/2000, on the directions of accused
No.1,hecollectedthewastepaperbasketcontainingpiecesofpaper
fromShindeandburntthesameattherearsideofthebuilding.This
witnessagainwasnotcrossexaminedonthisportionofhisdeposition
ratheritissuggestedtohimthathehadfalselydeposedthathewas
instructedthroughShindetoburnthepiecesinwastepaperbasket.
218] Inthisconnection,thesubsequentconductofaccusedNo.
1, after the successful trap against accused No.2, is showing his
involvement in the commission of offence and further that he
destroyed the important evidence with intention to protect accused
No.2andtoscreenhimself.
219] Trap was held on 26/05/2000 in the afternoon. The
accusedNo.1wasnotunawareaboutthetraponitsnextday,asitis
not the defenceof accused No.1, The conduct of accused No.1 on
27/05/2000,burningofpiecesofpaperinwastepaperbasketandon
29/05/2000,replacingthepageinthenotesheet,withanintentionto
destroytheevidenceofthevisitofthecomplainanttohisofficeand
further,thevisitofaccusedNo.2inhisofficeon22/05/2000.Accused
No.1on29/05/2000burntonepageofnotesheetafterreplacingthe
same, is clearly showing that he was knowing that the offence has
beencommittedbyaccusedNo.2inconnectionwiththeincidenceof
'Sairaj Bar and Restaurant'. Therefore, his involvement also can be
noticed,andhence,suchactofdestroyingthepieceofevidencewas
done by him. The evidence of P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.10 cannot be
disbelieved.Ontheotherhand,itneedstobenotedthatthereisno
reasons for these witnesses to depose falsely against accused No.1
whoattherelevanttimewassuperiorofficerandwasalsothehigher
rankpoliceofficer.TheconductoftheaccusedNo.1iscertainlyfalls
underthefourcornersofprovisionu/s.201oftheIndianPenalCode,
1860.Allthefouringredientsmentionedabovearefulfilledandthe
evidenceonrecordissufficienttoconcludethataccusedNo.1inorder
to screen himself and to accused No.2, destroyed the evidence i.e.
pageofnotesheetandvisitorsslip.
220] In my view, the prosecution has proved the charges
levelled against the accusedas required underthe definition of the
word Proved in the Indian Evidence Act, 1860, which is
reproducedbelow:
Afactissaidtobeprovedifafterconsideringthe
mattersbeforeit,theCourteitherbelievesit toexistor
considersitsexistencesoprobablethataprudentman
oughtunderthecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,
toactuponthesuppositionthatitexists.
Hence,IanswerthePointNo.5intheAffirmativeandheldthatthe
prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charges
levelledagainsttheaccusedNo.1u/s.201ofIndianPenalCode,1860.
AstoPointNo.7and8.
221] TheaccusedNo.1hasbeenchargedwiththeoffenceu/s.
10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accused No.2 has been
charged with the offence u/s. 8 and 9, of Prevention of Corruption
Act.TheaccusedNo.1,andaccusedNo.2,arealsochargedwiththe
offenceu/s.109ofIndianPenalCode,1860.ThechargeframedatSr.
No.1(Exh.8)byMyLd.Predecessor,isshowingthatthechargesu/s.
8,9(wronglymentionedas8)and10areframedasalternatecharge.
Thus,Ireachtotheconclusionasdiscussedabove,thatchargesu/s.7,
12,13(1)(d)r/w.13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988r/w.120
B,ofIndianPenalCode,1860areprovedagainstaccusedNo.1and
accusedNo.2,henceIproceedtopassthesuitableorderoncharges
u/s.8,9and10ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct,1988andu/s.109
ofIndianPenalCode,1860,atthetimeoffinalorder.
222] Insupportofthefindingsgivenbyme,inthisjudgement,I
takeresortoftheobservationsmadebyHon'bleApexCourtincaseof
Dr.SubramaniyanSwamiV/s.Dr.ManmohanSinghAndanother,
reportedin2012Cri.L.J1519,whicharesignificant,andreproduced
below.
Today corruption in our country not only poses a
grave danger to the concept of constitutional
governance,italsothreatenstheveryfoundationof
Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The
magnitude of corruption in our public life is
incompatiblewiththeconceptofasocialist,secular
democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that
where corruption begins, all rights end. Corruption
devalues human rights, chokes development and
underminesjustice,liberty,equality,fraternitywhich
are th core values in our preambular vision.
Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti
corruptionlawhastobeinterpretedandworkedout
in suchafashionas tostrengthen thefightagainst
corruption. Thatistosayinasituationwheretwo
constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court
has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate
corruptiontotheonewhichseekstoperpetuateit.
223] SimilarobservationsaremadebyHonorableLordshipof
ApexCourt,inajudgementincaseof R.S.NayakV/s.A.R.Antule,
reportedin(1984)2SupremeCourtCases,183
18. The1947Actwasenacted,asitslongtitleshows,tomake
more effective provision for the prevention of bribery and
corruption.Indisputably,therefore,theprovisionsoftheAct
mustreceivesuchconstructionatthehandsoftheCourtas
would advance the object and purpose underlying the Act
andatanyratenotdefeatit.Ifthewordsofthestatueare
clearandunambiguous,itistheplainestdutyoftheCourtto
giveeffecttothenaturalmeaningofthewordsusedinthe
provision. The question of construction arises only in the
eventofanambiguityortheplainmeaningofthewordsused
inthestatuewouldbeselfdefeating.Thecourtisentitledto
ascertain the intention of the legislature to remove the
ambiguity by constructing the provision of the statue as a
wholekeepinginviewwhatwasthemischiefwhenthestatue
wasenactedandtoremovewhichtheLegislatureenactedthe
statue. This rule of construction is so universally accepted
thatitneednotbesupportedbyprecedents. Adoptingthis
rule of construction, whenever a question of construction
arisesuponambiguityorwheretwoviewsarepossibleof a
provision, it would be the duty of the Court to adopt that
constructionwhichwouldadvancetheobjectunderlyingthe
Act,namely,tomakeeffectiveprovisionforthepreventionof
briberyandcorruptionandatanyratenotdefeatit.
224] Ialsoplacerelianceonthejudgementreportedin 2012
ALLMR(Cri)2227Rajeshs/o.AvinashMopkarV/s.CentralBureau
of Investigation, wherein the Honorable Lordship of Bombay High
Courthasobservedthat:
TheprovisionofSection3oftheEvidenceActshows
thatthefactcanbeprovedintwoways,andthereisdiscretionto
theCourtinthatregard.TheCourtmaypresumetheexistenceof
anyfact,factprovedwhichitbelievestoexist.Thisinferencecan
bedrawnbytheCourtonthebasisofthefactsandcircumstances
of a particular case. The second mode is using the belief of
ordinaryprudentman.UnderSec.114illustration(a)Courtmay
presumeexistenceofcertainfacts.
Thus, when tainted money is recovered from the
possessionofapublicservant,itisuptohimtoexplainastohow
hecameinpossessionofsuchmoney.
225] Ifurtherplacerelianceonthejudgmentreportedin2012
ALLMR(Cri)2869 incaseof TheStateofMaharashtraV/s.Arjun
BharmajiWaghchoure&Ors,whereinitisheldbytheHonourable
Lordshipthat,
Thoughtheaccusedhasarightandhisinnocenceneeds
tobepresumed,theSocietyhasarighttoseethatthe
personfoundguiltyinanoffencelikethepresentone,is
punished. Ifsuchpersonescapesfrompunishmentdue
to error committed by the trial Court and if appellate
court ignores the error and confirms the decision, it
amountstodoinginjusticetotheSociety.Theincidents
ofcorruptionhavealreadyincreasedtoalarmingextent.
If more than thousand incidents of corruption take
placeinacityeveryday,hardlyoneortwocasesare
reported inamonth. Out ofonehundred suchcases
filedinthecourt,thereisconvictioninatthemost10to
15casesduetohypertechnicalapproach.
226] Iwouldalsoliketoplacerelianceontheobservationof
the Honorable Apex Court in the reported judgement 2003 Cr.L.J.
3876incaseofSuchaSinghandanotherV/s.StateofPunjab,itis
observedinParagraph20that
Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt
mustnotnurturefancifuldoubtsorlingeringsuspicion
and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be
madesterileonthepleathatitisbettertolethundred
guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty
escapeisnotdoingjusticeaccordingtolaw.
Areasonabledoubt isnotanimaginary,trivialormerely
possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and
commonsense.Itmustgrowoutoftheevidenceinthecase.
AJudgedoesnotpresideoveracriminaltrial,merelytosee
thatnoinnocentmanispunished.AJudgealsopresidesto
see that a guilty man, does not escape. Both the public
duties. The doubts wouldbe called reasonable,if theyare
freefromzest,forabstractspeculation.
Lawcannotaffordanyfavouriteotherthantruth.
227] As stated in earlier paragraph, the prosecution have
provedbeyondallreasonabledoubt,thechargeslevelledagainstthe
accusedNo.1and2u/s.120B,201ofIndianPenalCode,1860Sec.
7,12,13(1)(d)r/w.13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct.Inviewof
thedefinitionof'Proved'ascontemplatedintheIndianEvidenceAct,
1872.
228] The gist of the judgement is explained to both the
accused. As accused are found guilty, here, I take a pause and call
upontheaccusedNo.1and2tosubmitonthepointofsentence.
229] The Ld. Advocate Shri Shinganapurkar, appearing on
behalfofaccusedNo.1,submittedthattheleniencyshouldbeshown
to the accused No.1, for the reason that since last 13 years, he is
undersuspensionandtherefore,minimumsentencebeawarded.
230] Accused No.1 in person, submitted that his son aged
about 28 years, by name Shri Rahul Ajaykumar Jain, is blind and
stayingwithhim.Whenthiscasewasinitiatedagainsthim,sonhad
undergonedepressionandtriedtocommitsuicideduetoallegations
madeagainsthisfatheri.e.accusedNo.1. Hefurthersubmittedthat
hissonhaslosthiseyesightandneedscontinuousattentionofadult
family member. He also submittedthat his wife and one son aged
about 25 years, are also there. According to him, he is the only
persontosupporthisfamily.Hefurthersubmittedthatheisduefor
retirement after 5 months i.e. on 31/08/2013. That the suspension
periodof13yearsisthehistoryintheservicerecordofIPSofficers
andheisalsosufferingmentalagonysincelast13years.Heisfacing
mental,physicalandfinancialcrisis.Heissufferingfinancialcrisisas
he is getting only subsistent allowance. Therefore, he prayed that
lenientviewmaybetaken.
231] The Ld. advocate for accused No.2 Shri Jambhavlikar
submitted that accused No.2 who is Chartered Accountant by
professionandhadalreadysufferedalotduetothiscase. Accused
No.2whoisthePresidentoftheircommunityhasalreadyundergone
mentallyagony,becauseoftheinstantcasefiledagainsthimbyAnti
Corruption Bureau. He submitted that he is the only responsible
personinhisfamilyandtherefore,heisentitledforlenientview.
232] AccusedNo.2inpersonsubmittedthatsincelast13years,
hehassufferedalotduetothiscase.Healsosufferedfinancialcrisis
andhisimageinhiscommunityhasbeenmalignedduetothiscase.
He also submitted that since last 1314 years, he is suffering from
diabetics. He therefore prayed that lenient view be taken while
awardingpunishmenttohim.
233] As against this, the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor Smt.
KalpanaChavan,submittedthatthoughshehasfullsympathyforboth
accused,butconsideringthenatureofoffencecommittedbybothof
them, maximum sentence be awarded to both the accused. The
circumstancesmentionedbybothofthemcannotmitigatethecharges
levelled against them. She submitted that therefore, maximum and
propersentencebeawardedtoboththeaccused.
234] I gave thoughtful consideration to the rival contention
made by the Ld. Advocate for accused No.1 and accused No.2,
submission made by the accused No.1 and 2 in person, and
submissionmadebyLd.SpecialPublicProsecutor.
235] This Court is also have full sympathy for the son of
accused No.1 who had undergone depression and lost his eyesight.
The reasons submitted by both the accused are very common in
nature, morethan 80%of citizensaresufferingfrom dibetics. The
other reasons i.e. prolonged suspension of accused No.1, their
financial,mentalandphysicalcrisiscannotbethereasonforshowing
thelenientviewtoboththeaccused.TheaccusedNo.1whowasthe
OfficerofHigherGrade,inLawandOrderexecutingdepartment,one
of the important pillar to protect the society, indulged himself in a
such type of illegal activities and that too, in connection with his
subordinateofficers,needstobeseriouslyviewed.Itisexpectedfrom
suchhighergradeofficerofLawandOrderexecutingmachinerythat
they should set an example for the society and also for the
subordinates working under them, so that their subordinate also
shouldnotdaretoindulgethemselvesinanyillegalact,butaccused
No.1totallyfailedtoperformhisdutyasaresponsibleofficerofLaw
andOrderexecutingmachinery.
236] TheaccusedNo.2whoishighlyeducatedperson,misused
hisrelationswiththeofficerlikeaccusedNo.1andindulgedhimselfin
commissionoftheillegalact.Theeducatedpersonsinthesocietylike
theaccusedNo.2,areexpectedtosetanexampleforthesocietythat
how the educated person should have responsible behaviour in
society,sothattheyshouldberespectedinasocietylikearolemodel,
butaccusedNo.2totallyfailedtobehaveinsuchamanner.
237] Inmyview,theoffencecommittedbyboththeaccused
needstobeviewedseriously.Thereasonsmentionedbybothofthem
arenotatallsufficientfortakinganylenientviewinrespectofboth
ofthem.
238] Accused No.1 who was at the relevant time was
'AdditionalCommissionerofPolice',officerofIPSCadre.AccusedNo.
2 who was also well educated i.e. Chartered Accountant and was
practisingasCharteredAccountantduringtherelevantperiodoftime.
Consideringthepositionofboththeaccusedattherelevanttime,in
the society and that, only with an intention to grab illegal
gratification,bothofthemmisusedtheirpowerandposition.
239] Consideringtheseriousnatureofoffenceandalsotaking
intoconsiderationthealarmingsituationinthesociety,thattheroots
ofthecorruptionarespreadalloverlikeCanceranditisthehightime
totakeseriousnoteofit.Sofarastheissueofshowinglenientview
totheaccusedisconcerned, Iamnotatallinclinedtoshowsuch
lenientviewtoboththeaccusedforthereasonsaforesaid.
240] In view of this, I would like to place reliance on the
observationmadebyHonorableApexCourtinthejudgmentreported
in2004Cr.L.J.620(SC)incaseofStateofA.P.V/s.V.VasudevaRao
whereinitisobservedbytheHonorableLordshipthat
Inthepresentcasehowcouldthemerefactthatthis
waspendingforsuchalongtimebeconsideredasa
'Specialreason'?Thatisageneralfeatureinalmostall
convictionsundertheActanditisnotaspecialtyof
this particular case. It is the defect inherent in
implementation of the system that longevity of the
casestriedundertheActistoolengthy.Ifthatisto
beregardedassufficientforreducingtheminimum
sentence mandated by Parliament the legislative
exercisewouldstanddefeated.
241] Inviewoftheabovereasoninggivenbyme,accordingto
me,followingordershallmeettheendofjusticeinapeculiarfacts
andcircumstancesofthiscase.
242] During the trial, accused were on bail, accused to
surrender.
OPERATIVEORDER
1] Accused No.1 ShriAjaykumarGyanchand Jainand
accused No.2 Prasanna Champalal Lodha are hereby convicted
u/s.235(1)ofCr.P.C.,1973 fortheoffencepunishableu/s.120Bof
Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w. Sec. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of
Preventionof CorruptionAct,1988, sentencedtosuffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for Five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/(Rs.
Fifty Thousand only), each and in default of payment of fine, to
sufferSimpleImprisonmentforfourmonths.
2] Accused No.1 Shri Ajaykumar Gyanchand Jain is
further convicted u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for the offence
punishableu/s. 7r/w.Sec.12,13(1)(d)punishableu/s.13(2)of
Prevention ofCorruptionAct,1988andr/w.Sec.120B ofIndian
PenalCode,1860, sentencedtosuffer RigorousImprisonmentfor
fiveyears andtopayfineofRs.50,000/(Rs.FiftyThousandonly),
andindefault ofpaymentof fine,tosuffer SimpleImprisonment
forfourmonths.
further convicted u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for the offence u/s.
13(1) (d) punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w. Sec.7, 12 of Prevention of
Corruption Act,1988 r/w. Sec.120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
sentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonmentforfiveyearsandtopay
fineofRs.50,000/(Rs.FiftyThousandonly), indefaultofpayment
offine,tosufferSimpleImprisonmentforfourmonths.
punishable u/s.201 of Indian Penal Code,1860 r/w. Sec.7, 12,
13(1)(d)punishableu/s.13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,
1988 r/w. Sec.120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentenced to
sufferRigorousImprisonmentforoneyear.
5] Accused No.2 Prasanna Champalal Lodha is further
convicted u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for the offence u/s. 12 of
PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988r/w.Sec.7,13(1)(d)r/w.Sec.
13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988andr/w.Sec.120Bof
Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/(Rs.
SeventyFiveThousandonly),indefaultofpaymentoffine,tosuffer
SimpleImprisonmentforsixmonths.
6] The Accused No.1 and 2, to surrender. Their Bail bonds
standscancelledandsuretiesifany,bedischarged.
7] All the sentences imposed onaccused No.1 and accused
No.2shallrunconcurrently.
8] Asetoffu/s.428ofCr.P.C.,1973isgrantedtoboththe
accused for the period of detention undergone by them during
investigation/trial,againstthesubstantivesentenceawarded.
9] ThechargelevelledagainstaccusedNo.1and2u/s.8,9
and10ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988r/w.109ofIndianPenal
Code,1860areherebywithdrawn.
10] ValuableMuddemalPropertyi.e.
Article6MarkedcurrencynotesofRs.2,10,000/(4
bundlesconsistingof400currencynotesofRs.500/denominationsand
100 currency notes of Rs.100/ denominations ) be returned to the
ACB,andACBtoreturnthesametothecomplainant,ifnotalready
returned,aftertheappealperiodisover.
11] OtherMuddemalPropertyi.e.
Article5 MobileHandsetofaccusedNo.2,isherebyconfiscated.
Themobilehandsetifitisinworkingconditionbeauctioned,andits
saleproceedsbedepositedintheaccountofStateGovernment,ifnot
inworkingcondition,bedestroyedaftertheappealperiodisover.
12] OthermuddemalpropertyI.e.
Article1 OriginalcassetteNo.1@wrappers.
Article3 Microcassette@wrappers
Article5A Label
Article6A PolytheneBag(ExcelTailor)
Article6BLabel
Article7(colly)Twodiaries
Article7A Label
Article8 WhiteNapkin
Article8A Label
Article9 Shirt
Article9A Label
Article10 BlueColourPant
Article10ALabel
Article11SeatcoveroftheCar
Article11ALabel
Article12OriginalcassetteNo.2
Article13 OriginalcassetteNo.1
Article14 EncircledportiononArticle7
Article16(colly)EncircledportionsonArticle9
Article17 EncircledportiononPantArticle10
andunmarkedpropertyifany,beingworthless,bedestroyedafterthe
appealperiodisover.
13] JailauthorityisdirectedtoproducetheaccusedNo.1
and accused No.2 on 15/04/2013 for providing the copy of
judgementtothem,'FreeofCost'.
sd/
(Smt.S.K.Keole)
TheSpecialJudgeforACB
10/04/2013. Gr.Bombay
Dictatedon :10/04/2013.
Transcribedon :12/04/2013.
Checked&Signon :15/04/2013.
Exh.107A
INTHECOURTOFTHESPECIALJUDGEFORGREATERBOMBAY.
ACBSPECIALCASENo.46of2001
TheStateofMaharashtra
(AntiCorruptionBureau,B.M.U.
C.R.No.23/2000) ...Complainant.
V/s.
1.ShriAjaykumarGyanchandJain
Age:59years.Occ.:IPSofficer
[Presentlyundersuspension]
ResidingatA/3,MawalFlats,
MoledineRoad,Camp,Pune411001.
2.ShriPrasannaChampalalLodha
Age:55years,Occ.:CharteredAccountant.
ResidingatFlatNo.805,AshokTower/B,
Dr.BabasahebAmbedkarRoad,Parel(East),
Mumbai400042. ...Accused
Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorSmt.KalpanaChavan,forACB.
Ld.AdvocateShriShinganapurkar,foraccusedNo.1
Ld.AdvocateShriJambhavlikar,foraccusedNo.2.
Coram:HERHONOURTHESPECIALJUDGE SMT.S.K.KEOLE
[C.R.No.45]
Dated:10
th
April,2013.
{Offencespunishableu/s.7,8,9,10,12,13(1)(d)
r/w.13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988and
u/s109,120Band201ofIndianPenalCode,1860}
OPERATIVEORDER
1] Accused No.1 ShriAjaykumarGyanchand Jainand
accused No.2 Prasanna Champalal Lodha are hereby convicted
u/s.235(1)ofCr.P.C.,1973 fortheoffencepunishableu/s.120Bof
Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w. Sec. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of
Preventionof CorruptionAct,1988, sentencedtosuffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for Five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/(Rs.
Fifty Thousand only), each and in default of payment of fine, to
sufferSimpleImprisonmentforfourmonths.
punishableu/s. 7r/w.Sec.12,13(1)(d)punishableu/s.13(2)of
Preventionof CorruptionAct,1988andr/w.Sec.120B ofIndian
PenalCode,1860, sentencedtosuffer RigorousImprisonmentfor
fiveyears andtopayfineofRs.50,000/(Rs.FiftyThousandonly),
andindefault ofpaymentof fine,tosuffer SimpleImprisonment
forfourmonths.
further convicted u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for the offence u/s.
13(1) (d) punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w. Sec.7, 12 of Prevention of
Corruption Act,1988 r/w. Sec.120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
sentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonmentforfiveyearsandtopay
fineofRs.50,000/(Rs.FiftyThousandonly), indefaultofpayment
offine,tosufferSimpleImprisonmentforfourmonths.
punishable u/s.201 of Indian Penal Code,1860 r/w. Sec.7, 12,
13(1)(d)punishableu/s.13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,
1988 r/w. Sec.120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentenced to
sufferRigorousImprisonmentforoneyear.
5] Accused No.2 Prasanna Champalal Lodha is further
convicted u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for the offence u/s. 12 of
PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988r/w.Sec.7,13(1)(d)r/w.Sec.
13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988andr/w.Sec.120Bof
Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/(Rs.
SeventyFiveThousandonly),indefaultofpaymentoffine,tosuffer
SimpleImprisonmentforsixmonths.
6] The Accused No.1 and 2, to surrender. Their Bail bonds
standscancelledandsuretiesifany,bedischarged.
7] All the sentences imposed onaccused No.1 and accused
No.2shallrunconcurrently.
8] Asetoffu/s.428ofCr.P.C.,1973isgrantedtoboththe
accused for the period of detention undergone by them during
investigation/trial,againstthesubstantivesentenceawarded.
9] ThechargelevelledagainstaccusedNo.1and2u/s.8,9
and10ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988r/w.109ofIndianPenal
Code,1860areherebywithdrawn.
10] ValuableMuddemalPropertyi.e.
Article6MarkedcurrencynotesofRs.2,10,000/(4
bundlesconsistingof400currencynotesofRs.500/denominationsand
100 currency notes of Rs.100/ denominations ) be returned to the
ACB,andACBtoreturnthesametothecomplainant,ifnotalready
returned,aftertheappealperiodisover.
11] OtherMuddemalPropertyi.e.
Article5 MobileHandsetofaccusedNo.2,isherebyconfiscated.
Themobilehandsetifitisinworkingconditionbeauctioned,andits
saleproceedsbedepositedintheaccountofStateGovernment,ifnot
inworkingcondition,bedestroyedaftertheappealperiodisover.
12] OthermuddemalpropertyI.e.
Article3 Microcassette@wrappers
Article5A Label
Article6A PolytheneBag(ExcelTailor)
Article6BLabel
Article7(colly)Twodiaries
Article7A Label
Article8 WhiteNapkin
Article8A Label
Article9 Shirt
Article9A Label
Article10 BlueColourPant
Article10ALabel
Article11SeatcoveroftheCar
Article11ALabel
Article12OriginalcassetteNo.2
Article13 OriginalcassetteNo.1
Article16(colly)EncircledportionsonArticle9
Article17 EncircledportiononPantArticle10
andunmarkedpropertyifany,beingworthless,bedestroyedafterthe
appealperiodisover.
13] JailauthorityisdirectedtoproducetheaccusedNo.1
and accused No.2 on 15/04/2013 for providing the copy of
judgementtothem,'FreeofCost'.
(Smt.S.K.Keole)
TheSpecialJudgeforACB
10/04/2013. Gr.Bombay

IPS Officer Bribery Case Judgement AK Jain

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

IPS Officer Bribery Case Judgement AK Jain

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

JUDGEMENT1ACBSPL.CASENO.

the said complainant

Anda mungkin juga menyukai