On the contrary, law relied on behalf of the appellant in the
case of Punjabrao ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2002)10
SCC 371 can be applied in the instant case wherein it is observed that if
the explanation offered by the accused under Section 313 of Code of
Criminal Procedure is found to be reasonable, then it cannot be thrown
away merely on the ground that he did not offer the said explanation at
the time when the amount was seized. For the reasons stated herein
above, as well as on facts, explanation offered by appellant involved in
this appeal appears to be probable, reasonable and acceptable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.333 OF 2002.
Balkrishna s/o Lakshmi hand Didwani,
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENT: The State of Maharashtra
through A.C.B.Akola.
CORAM: P.N.DESHMUKH, J.
DATED: 23rd JUNE, 2014.
Citation;2014 ALLMR(cri)3182 Bom
By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment
and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola,
dated 1st of June, 2002 in Special Case No.6 of 1992 convicting
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to
pay a fine of Rs.2000/, in default to suffer R.I. for four months and for
the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for
Prosecution case can briefly be stated as follows
2.
suffer R.I. for four months.
one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ in default to
At the time of incident, appellant was working as Upper
Division Clerk in the office of Income Tax, Ward II, Akola and as such
was required to process the income tax return. PW 1, the complainant,
and his brother PW 3 Manoj were having their ready made garments
shop styled as “Metro Mens Collection” and “Metro Dressers’ both
situated at Akola. They were filing income tax returns through PW 4
Sakharam Kulkarni, their Advocate. The income tax returns for the year
198789 was filed on 29/11/1989 and the required income tax was
paid.
On 1/6/1990, PW 4 Advocate Sakharam Kulkarni informed
complainant that appellant has called him on 4/6/1990. Accordingly,
complainant met appellant who informed the complainant that his case
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:06 :::
3
Apeal333.02
would go for special scrutiny and in that case complainant may face
trouble by paying more income tax and thus said that if he wanted to
avoid the same, he should pay appellant Rs.7000/ and appellant
would give him assessment order and refund voucher. The amount so
demanded was negotiated to Rs.4000/ and was agreed to be paid on
5/6/1990. On this day, appellant visited the shop of complainant and
ig
gave him assessment order dated 23/5/1990 and refund voucher dated
31/5/1990 and had obtained acknowledgment (Exh.60). At the same
time, appellant demanded Rs.4000/ as agreed, upon which the
complainant informed that he would arrange for same by evening and
informed the appellant to come to his ‘Metro Dresses’ shop by 6 to 7
p.m.
3.
According to prosecution, as complainant was not willing to
pay the bribe amount, he lodged report with AntiCorruption Bureau
(ACB), Akola vide Exh.61. Accordingly, the authorities of A.C.B., Akola
arranged for two panch witnesses being PW 2 Sudhakar Khot and one
Laxman Bhagat and then gave demonstration to complainant and
panchas of effect of phenolphthalein powder with solution of Sodium
Carbonate, by which they learnt that when said powder comes in
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:06 :::
4
Apeal333.02
contact with above stated solution, it changes its colour to violate. On
applying Phenolphthalein powder to the bribe amount of Rs.4000/,
necessary instructions were given to complainant as well as to PW 2
Sudhakar to accompany the complainant and to Laxman Bhagat to
accompany the raiding team and trap came to be laid at the shop of
4.
ig
to be prepared (Exh.64).
complainant. Before proceeding to the spot, pretrap panchanama came
According to the prosecution, on reaching to his shop,
complainant Mukesh sat on the counter while PW 2 Sudhakar was in
shop at a distance of 2 to 3 ft. from the complainant, watching the
clothes. About half an hour thereafter, the appellant arrived in the
shop and told complainant that his work was over and he should give
him Rs.4000/, as agreed, saying that he would manage other things
and the complainant should not worry. Upon which, complainant took
out Rs.4000/ from his right side pant pocket by his right hand and gave
it to the appellant which he accepted and on counting by both of his
hands, kept in his left side shirt pocket. On complainant’s giving the
proposed signal, raiding team officials arrived in the shop and
apprehended the appellant. PW 6 Dashrat Gawande, P.I., dipped the
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:06 :::
5
Apeal333.02
fingers of appellant in the solution of sodium Carbonate which turned
into violate colour. The amount of Rs.4000/ was recovered from the
shirt pocket of appellant. Similarly, when complainant’s fingers were
treated with sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned in to violate
PW 6 Gawande, P.I., forwarded report to the City Kotwali
ig
5.
colour. Panchanama of these facts was done vide Exh.164.
Police Station for registering an offence. The FIR is at Exh.166. During
the course of investigation, he deposited the Muddemal in City Kotwali
Police Station, Akola and forwarded bottle containing sodium carbonate
liquid for analysis. He then recorded statements of witnesses and
forwarded the same to Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai, as
appellant was Central Government employee. PW 7 Raman Rajaram
Tyagi, Police Inspector, C.B.I. Anti Corruption Bombay registered an
offence vide Crime No.47 of 1990. On finding that prima facie case
exists against the appellant, he forwarded the investigation papers to
PW 8 Shivakant Jaha, Commissioner of Income Tax for according
sanction to prosecute the appellant which was accorded as per Exh.180.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed before the
Special Court.
Charge was framed against appellant for the offences
6.
Apeal333.02
punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. The defence of appellant is that he had never met the
complainant nor had demanded any bribe. It is his specific case that his
father was running a tailoring shop styled as ‘Gidwani Tailor’ at Akola
where complainant used to send ready made clothes of his shop for
alteration purpose against which amount of Rs.7000/ was to be paid by
the complainant and after the death of appellant’s father appellant was
demanding said amount from the complainant who was avoiding to pay
the same in spite of appellant’s visiting him on 5 to 6 occasions.
According to the appellant, due to intervention of PW 4 Advocate
Kulkarni complainant agreed to make payment of Rs.4000/ against
Rs.7000/ and as such on the day of incident when he visited the shop
of complainant and accepted the said amount, he was falsely
apprehended.
7.
On considering the evidence, learned Trial Court convicted
appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
Heard Smt.S.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant
8.
and Mrs.T.H.Udeshi, learned APP for the State. To effectively evaluate
the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for both the sides, I
PW 1 complainant, Mukesh has stated that he along with his
9.
have scrutinized the evidence with their assistance.
brother PW 3 Manoj are looking after the affairs of two ready made
garments shops at Akola of which income tax work is looked after by
PW 4 Advocate Kulkarni. On 1/6/1990, Advocate Kulkarni informed
him that appellant had called him to meet. Accordingly, on 4/6/1990
he met appellant and appellant told that if his income tax return is sent
for scrutiny, he may face trouble and informed that if he pays him
Rs.7000/, he will issue the necessary orders. According to
complainant, said amount was, however, negotiated to Rs.4000/ and
agreed to be paid on 5/6/1990. In pursuance to the talks as above, it is
further stated by the complainant that on 5/6/1990 appellant visited to
his shop at 11 a.m. and gave the assessment order and refund voucher
and had obtained his acknowledgment vide Exh.60 and thereafter
demanded Rs.4000/ as agreed, upon which complainant informed that
he had not arranged for the same and would pay on the same day by 5
to 6 p.m. at his ‘Metro Collection’ shop, upon which the appellant
agreed to come to collect the same. Complainant further stated that he
then visited the office of A.C.B.Akola and lodged his report at Exh.61.
Complainant thereafter further stated about the demonstration given to
him and panchas about effect of Phenolphthalein powder and sodium
carbonate solution and necessary instructions, etc. On the point of
incident, he has further stated that he along with PW 2 Sudhakar, the
panch, were present in the shop when appellant arrived within half an
hour and informed the complainant that the work was over and he
should pay him Rs.4000/ as agreed. Appellant further said that he
would manage by saying, ‘Saltaloonga’ and the complainant should not
worry, upon which the complainant paid Rs.4000/ which he counted
and kept in his shirt’s pocket. Immediately thereafter, members of the
raiding team arrived and apprehended the appellant.
10.
It has come in his crossexamination that both the shops of
complainant are situated nearby and the income tax returns of his
business are filed by PW 4 Advocate Kulkarni since last ten years. He
has admitted that the income tax return for the period 198789 was
filed on 29/11/1989 of which he had not received any notice and was
not aware whether any notice in this respect was received by his
Advocate. Complainant admitted that after he was informed by
Advocate Kulkarni to meet the appellant, he did not make any enquiry
as to for what purpose he was called and has admitted that he learnt
about the decision of income tax returns when he was supplied with the
assessment order dated 23/5/1990, on 5/6/1990. Complainant has
thus admitted that he was aware that his income tax return was
accepted on that day i.e. on 23/5/1990 and further admitted that
refund order was also issued dated 31/5/1990. In view of admission of
complainant as stated above, there appears much force when it is
submitted on behalf of the appellant that no work was left with the
appellant or with the office of income tax, as income tax return of
complainant was filed on 29/11/1989, the assessment order was
already issued on 23/5/1990 while the refund order was issued on
31/5/1990. In that view of the matter, I find substance when it is
submitted on behalf of the appellant that he had never met the
complainant on 4/6/1990 and demanded bribe of Rs.4000/ saying that
if complainant’s income tax return comes into scrutiny, he may face
trouble and may be required to pay additional income tax.
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:06 :::
10
Moreovr, evidence of complainant on the material aspect of
11.
Apeal333.02
demand and acceptance of bribe money involved in this appeal also do
not find convincing, as he has admitted that though he had mentioned
in his statement recorded by police that appellant said that his work
was over and that he should pay Rs.4000/ as agreed, same do not find
ig
place in his statement for which he is unable to give any reason. Above
omission on the part of complainant thus creates reasonable doubt in
his evidence that appellant on arriving in his shop on 5/6/1990 had
said to complainant that his work was over and demanded Rs.4000/ as
agreed. The case of prosecution also creates reasonable doubt
establishing involvement of appellant in this case as, admittedly,
complainant had received the copy of assessment order and refund
voucher on 5/6/1990 itself at 12.15 noon from the appellant.
According to the complainant, thereafter at about 1 p.m. he visited
office of A.C.B.Akola and lodged his report where he was present till 6
p.m. where panchanama was drawn and trap was laid. Though
complainant had denied that he knows father of the appellant who was
running tailoring shop, and that alteration work from complainant’s
shop was provided to the father of the appellant and has also denied
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:06 :::
11
Apeal333.02
that any amount was due to be paid by the complainant to the father of
appellant for carrying out alteration work, it is found that the case as
suggested above has been denied by the complainant as he wanted to
falsely implicate the appellant probably, since appellant was insisting
complainant for payment of due amount. Above fact is found
substantiated from further evidence of complainant when he has
ig
admitted that on making payment of Rs.4000/ he informed appellant
that he should count money. He further admitted that in the office of
A.C.B., no such instructions were given to him to inform appellant to
count the money but according to his evidence he said so, so that the
Phenolphthalein powder should go on the hands of appellant. Above
piece of evidence further establishes the intention of complainant to
falsely implicate the appellant when he would arrive to his shop to
collect the amount due towards his father.
12.
Evidence of PW 3 Manoj, brother of complainant,
corroborates the complainant on the aspect of appellant visiting their
shop on 5/6/1990 at 12.30 noon and supplying the income tax return
order and refund voucher. He has also stated about complainant’s
issuing acknowledgment vide Exh.60 on receiving said documents.
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:06 :::
12
Apeal333.02
Evidence of this witness thus also substantiates the case of appellant
establishing that no work was left with him, as according to the income
tax order, it is dated 23/5/1990 while refund order is dated 31/5/1990.
In the circumstances, though it has further come in the evidence of PW
3 Manoj that on providing these documents appellant demanded money
from complainant, said evidence does not inspire confidence, while I
ig
find much substance when it is suggested to this witness that no such
demand was made though said suggestion is denied by him, in view of
the specific case of appellant that on 5/6/1990 he was to visit the shop
of complainant for collecting the due amount.
13.
In the background of evidence of complainant when
evidence of PW 2, panch, who had accompanied him in the shop, is
perused, it reveals that after he attended the office of A.C.B. along with
one Bhagat at 2 p.m., he was introduced to complainant and they were
given demonstration of Phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate
solution and after giving necessary instructions to complainant and
panchas the trap came to be laid. On the point of incident, he stated
that after reaching the shop of complainant he was seeing the clothes
and in the meantime the appellant arrived and demanded money saying
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:07 :::
13
Apeal333.02
that he would manage, upon which complainant paid him currency
notes by removing from right side pocket of his pant and thereafter
complainant gave a proposed signal upon which the members of the
raiding team arrived and apprehended the appellant.
When evidence of said independent witness is considered,
particularly on the point of demand and acceptance, he has admitted
ig
that till the appellant arrived at the spot, he was not aware who he was,
and it is only when he heard the talk between complainant and
appellant in a loud voice, he came to know about the appellant.
Evidence of said panch is totally silent about the conversation on the
point of demand and acceptance as what has come in his evidence is,
complainant said to the appellant to count the notes if it was Rs.4000/
or Rs.5000/ except for this his evidence is totally silent. In view of
above evidence, it is found that said witness has spoken only with
reference to complainant’s directing the appellant to count the notes
and his evidence is totally silent on the point of demand and
acceptance. On the contrary, it has come in his evidence that the
appellant and complainant were talking in a low voice till the
authorities of A.C.B. arrived in the shop. In that view of the matter,
prosecution cannot said to have brought substantiative evidence on
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:07 :::
record to corroborate complainant’s version.
14
Apeal333.02
It is well settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent
statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the
testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of
credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can
PW 4 Sakharam Kulkarni, Advocate, had stated that he is
14.
ig
be based on the evidence of such witnesses.
looking after the income tax work of complainant’s firm by filing
returns, etc. and, totally in contrast to the evidence of complainant, has
stated that prior to 4/6/1990 complainant visited him and informed
that appellant was calling him in the office, upon which he said that as
he had no work in Income Tax Office for two days, he would be going
on 4/6/1990 and thus the complainant should accompany him on that
day to meet the appellant while, according to the complainant’s
evidence, on 1/6/1990 it is PW 4 Kulkarni Advocate who gave him
massage that appellant has called him to meet. From this piece of
evidence again it can reasonably held that it is complainant who wanted
to meet the appellant to involve him in a false case as appellant wanted
to recover due amount from the complainant.
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:07 :::
15
Apeal333.02
PW 4 Kulkarni further stated that accordingly on 4/6/1990
he along with complainant went to Income Tax Officer when
complainant met appellant who was talking about money and he left to
do his work. It has further come in his evidence that if the income tax
return is to be scrutinized, the Income Tax Office has to issue notice
under the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act within six months from
ig
the date of filing of returns. It has also come in the evidence of
Advocate Kulkarni that he had filed income tax return in respect of
complainant’s establishment on 29/11/1989. It is material to note that
the incident involved in this case is dated 5/6/1990, the assessment
order is dated 23/5/1990 and refund voucher is dated 30/5/1990
which established that the income tax returns of complainant were not
to be scrutinized and in fact refund order was already issued on
30/5/1990 which fact shows that there was no reason for appellant to
demand money. In fact, it has further come in the evidence of PW 4
Kulkarni that on 1/6/1990 complainant told him that he had met
appellant on 5 or 6 occasions, however, he had not asked him as to
what was the talk which took place between them. No explanation is
put forth by prosecution for appellant’s meeting the complainant on so
many occasions prior to 1/6/1990 and in the absence of any such
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:07 :::
16
Apeal333.02
explanation, thus, the case set out on behalf of appellant appears to be
more probable that appellant during this period contacted the
complainant for receiving the due amount.
15.
Evidence of PW 5 Fakirchand Ambadas Ambekar when
perused it reveals that at the time of incident he was working as a
ig
Income Tax Officer at Akola and was required to assess the income tax
returns while the appellant was working as Upper Division Clerk and
was assigned with job to process the return by placing the same along
with his report before the Income Tax Officer which he used to verify
and to decide if it was suitable for placing for scrutiny or otherwise.
PW 5 Ambekar stated that Exh.162 is Income Tax return of complainant
in a pro forma bearing his signature at Exh.163 and has stated that
since he has signed it, complainant’s case was not referred for scrutiny.
He has also stated that refund order (Exh.65) was also sent to
complainant. Evidence of this officer also established fact that nothing
was left with the office of income tax or with the appellant with regard
to complainant’s income tax return for the year 198889 and thus, it is
difficult to believe that appellant on the false pretext of not sending the
case of complainant for scrutiny had demanded bribe, more particularly
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:07 :::
17
Apeal333.02
when the assessment order as well as refund order was admittedly
received by the complainant prior to the incident.
Above case, as set out on behalf of appellant, is found further
substantiated when PW 5 Ambekar admitted that as per Exh.162, which
is return filed by complainant dated 29/11/1990, was accepted on
In view of specific defence of appellant as already stated
16.
ig
23/5/1990 and thereafter refund voucher was issued on 31/5/1990.
above and to substantiate the same, the appellant has examined D.W.1
Advocate Narayan Lokras who was knowing the complainant as at the
material time PW 4 Advocate Kulkarni was working with him and as
such the complainant’s income tax returns were filed through him. He
has stated that on 2/6/1990 complainant came to his office where PW 4
Kulkarni, DW 3 Warulkar were present and there was a talk that father
of complainant was to receive approximately Rs.7000/ from
complainant and accordingly this witness informed complainant that he
should make said payment, upon which complainant said that he would
make the payment as per his convenience as that much amount was not
with him and at the same time requested PW 4 Kulkarni to settle the
amount to a reasonable figure. Advocate Lokras further stated that the
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:07 :::
18
Apeal333.02
complainant had not denied said fact and in his presence agreed to
make payment of Rs.5000/ to be paid as per his convenience. Nothing
is elicited in the crossexamineation of this witness which, as such,
established the probable case of appellant. In fact, it has come in his
crossexamination that he has not advised the appellant to issue any
legal notice to complainant having friendly relations and particularly
ig
when complainant admitted the liability. It has further come in his
crossexamination that prior to said meeting there were 2 – 3 meetings
held amongst them which were arranged by him at the instance of
appellant who insisted to call at his (DW 1’s) office.
Evidence of defence witness DW 2 Rampher Pohar also
established fact of assessment order and refund voucher in respect of
income tax return filed by complainant having been completed much
prior to the incident, while DW 3 Warulkar further established the case
of appellant when he has stated that he knows the appellant as he too
was working in the office of income tax in the same capacity of Upper
Division Clerk as that of appellant, whose father was a tailor having
shop styled as ’Gidwani Tailor’ at Akola. He further stated that
complainant had to pay Rs.7000/ to the father of appellant and
therefore after the death of his father this witness had accompanied
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:07 :::
19
Apeal333.02
appellant to the complainant and demanded Rs.7000/ with reference
to the tailoring charges which was avoided to be paid by the
complainant. He further stated that he had accompanied appellant to
the complainant on 5 to 6 occasions and thereafter had decided to
inform complainant through his Advocates DW 1 Lokras and PW 4
Kulkarni. It has further come in his evidence that on 2/6/1990 he
accompanied appellant to the office of PW 4 Kulkarni where
complainant was called and on that day with regard to the amount of
Rs.7000/, which was due, it was agreed that the complainant should
pay Rs.4000/ to the appellant. As such from his evidence it reveals
that amount of Rs.7000/, which was due, was agreed to be paid by the
complainant to the appellant which was negotiated to Rs.4000/.
Above stated evidence also further establishes the case of accused of his
false implication. Nothing is elicited in the crossexamination of this
witness creating any doubt. On the contrary, it is denied that he has
not accompanied appellant to meet the complainant in the office of
Advocate Lokras. It is also denied that he is deposing in favour of
appellant being his friend.
17.
Having considered above discussed evidence, appellant can
said to have established his case as has been set out in his statement
recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by way of
reply to question Nos.51, 93, as well as, written statement filed in reply
to question No.96 wherein it is the specific case of appellant that during
life time his father, he owed Rs.7000/ from the complainant which fact
was informed to him and note to that effect was also taken by him in his
ig
note book and thus appellant time and again was contacting
complainant for recovery of said amount. However, complainant was
avoiding to make said payment. He has further stated that prior to
incident on 1/6/1990 with the assistance of his Advocates Shri Kulkarni
and Shri Lokras, meeting was held between him and complainant in the
presence of both his Advocates, who were looking after his income tax
work, who had informed complainant, that amount should be paid to
appellant, upon which complainant agreed to make payment of Rs.
4000/ and thus as per the message from complainant he visited his
shop on 5/6/1990 for collecting his due and came to be apprehended
on the basis of a false report lodged by complainant.
18.
Learned APP, in the background of facts involved in the
appeal, has relied upon the case of Ramesh Kumar Gupta ..vs.. State
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2014 20:38:07 :::
21
Apeal333.02
of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1995 CRI.L.J.3656. However law
relied cannot be made applicable having distinguishing facts, as in that
case the Police Inspector who was apprehended for having accepting
bribe, gave bare denial that he had no knowledge of notes, which was
held to be without substance observing that there can be no question of
false implication as it was proved that it was only by way of harassment
ig
to the complainant made by appellant by demand, complainant was
compelled to borrow the amount for making payment. Moreover, in
that case there was sufficient corroboration to the evidence of
complainant by surrounding circumstances, unlike the appeal on hand
where there is no corroboration to the complainant’s evidence even
from the evidence of PW 2, panch, on the material aspect of demand
and acceptance.
19.
Prosecution has also relied on the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh ..vs.. V.Vasudeva Rao reported in AIR 2004 S.C.960,
according to which presumption is required to be drawn and it is to be
understood as in terrorem i.e. having some import of compulsion.
However, said authority also cannot be made applicable to the instant
appeal in absence of proof that appellant had accepted or agreed to
accept any gratification. In the absence of above necessary evidence,
20.
no presumption can be raised.
On the contrary, law relied on behalf of the appellant in the
case of Punjabrao ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2002)10
SCC 371 can be applied in the instant case wherein it is observed that if
the explanation offered by the accused under Section 313 of Code of
Criminal Procedure is found to be reasonable, then it cannot be thrown
away merely on the ground that he did not offer the said explanation at
the time when the amount was seized. For the reasons stated herein
above, as well as on facts, explanation offered by appellant involved in
this appeal appears to be probable, reasonable and acceptable.
21.
With reference to presumption as contemplated under
Section 20 of the Act, learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance
in the case of State of Maharashtra ..vs.. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao
Wankhede reported in (2009) 15 SCC 200 wherein para No.16 of the
judgment it is laid down that
“16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification
is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under
the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion
as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz.
demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of
illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the
court must take into consideration the facts and
circumstances brought on the record in the entirety.
For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive
evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act,
must also be taken into consideration but then in
respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of
proof on the accused visavis the standard of burden
of proof on the presumption would differ. Before,
however, the accused is called upon to explain as to
how the amount in question was found in his
possession, the foundational facts must be established
by the prosecution. Even while invoking the
provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is
required to consider the explanation offered by the
accused, if any, only on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and not on the
22.
touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.”
In the circumstance and having considering the evidence of
complainant PW 1 Mukesh Karia and PW 2 – Sudhakar Khot since is at
variance in respect of demand and acceptance, according to me, the
appellant would be entitled for benefit of doubt as mere recovery of the
tainted currency notes by itself would not raise any presumption
against the appellant/accused, nor this fact is sufficient to prove the
offence against the appellant. A reference at this stage may usefully be
made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Banarasi
Dass ..vs.. State of Haryana (AIR 2010 SC 1589) : [2010 ALL MR
(Cri) 1608 (S.C.)]. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held
that recovery of the tainted notes divorced from the evidence in respect
of demand and acceptance would not amount to establishing the
offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
23.
Thus, in view of above discussed evidence and law,
prosecution cannot said to have established involvement of appellant
for having demanded and accepted the bribe amount within the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act for which he was charged,
beyond reasonable doubt, while the case set out on behalf of appellant
acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
24.
appears to be more probable. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to be
At this stage, I must record appreciation for
Mrs.S.P.Kulkarni, Advocate, who was appointed to represent the
appellant. I found that she had meticulously prepared the matter and
she has very ably argued the appeal. As Mrs.Kulkarni is an appointed
Advocate, I quantify legal fees to be paid to her for this appeal by the
High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs.5000/ (Rupees five
thousand only).
25.
Accordingly, following order is passed.
Criminal appeal is allowed.
The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for
the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is
acquitted of the offences with which he was charged and convicted.
Fine, if any, paid by the appellant be refunded to him.
His bail bond stands cancelled.
No comments:
Post a Comment