Oral Judgment:
1. Heard rival arguments on this criminal appeal preferred by appellant/original accused challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2003, by which the appellant/original accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by said impugned judgment and order original accused preferred this appeal.
2. During the pendency of the appeal original appellant/accused died on 14.11.2010 and his widow proceeded further with the said appeal and she is pursuing the matter.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
During the relevant year 1993 original appellant/accused was working as Senior Assistant/Clerk in Panchayat Samiti Office, Sindewahi, District Chandrapur. One Namdeo Kodape was serving as Teacher in Zilla Parishad Primary School, Gunjewahi, District Chandrapur he retired on 30.09.1991. He submitted papers for preparation of pension case but it was not finalized and his retirement benefits were not given to him. Apparently, it was due to some dispute regarding his exact date of birth and as such dispute regarding on which date he is supposed to retire from service. Prior to finalization of his pension case said Namdeo Kodape died on or about 20.08.1993 and thereafter his son Ashok Kodape, the complainant pursued the matter by visiting the Panchayat Samiti Office and used to meet the original accused who was then Senior Assistant posted in Education Department of Panchayat Samiti and was dealing with the pension case of Namdeo Kodape. Time and again Ashok Kodape complainant requested the accused to expedite the finalization of pension case and despatch the papers for sanction of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad so that the retirement benefits could be expeditiously given.
4. Allegedly during such visits there was demand of Rs.500/- by the accused in order to process further the pension case papers. On request of complainant Ashok Kodape said demand was reduced to Rs.400/- and out of that complainant had paid Rs.200/- as a part payment and Rs.200/- were remaining to be paid. Again sometime on 20.12.1993 accused repeated his demand for balance amount of Rs.200/- when complainant Ashok Kodape met him for the work. Accused agree to accept the said amount on 21.12.1993. By this time complainant was not happy with the conduct of the accused and was not ready and willing to pay the said remaining bribe amount of Rs.200/- as such he approached Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur and lodged oral report on 21.12.1993. His complaint was reduced into writing. Panch witnesses were called and were apprised with the contents of the complaint. Pre-trap panchnama was drawn at the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur during which the procedure regarding the trap was apprised to the panchas. Detailed pre-trap panchanama was drawn. The currency notes of Rs.200/- were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and were given in the custody of the complainant. Necessary instructions were given to complainant and the panch witness regarding action to be taken after demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused.
5. The raiding party members including panchas and complainant and A.C.B. Officer Mr. Pawar went to the office of the accused at Sindewahi. Complainant and panch witness no.1 proceeded ahead and met the accused. Accused inquired the complainant as to whether amount has been brought and on complainant answering in affirmative accused asked them to wait outside, as by that time the inspection of the office was going on. After some time, accused came out and along with complainant and pancha went to nearby hotel and took tea. Complainant had a talk with the accused regarding pension case of his father. After taking tea accused and complainant went towards the urinal and then complainant took out the currency notes from his pocket and gave them to the accused, accused accepted the amount and kept in his shirt pocket. They all went to the office of the accused. On the way complainant gave signal to the raiding party members as such raiding party rushed to the office and caught hold of the accused and usual trap procedure was adopted regarding taking the custody of the articles including currency notes from the accused and testing his hands, shirt pocket etc. for presence of phenolphthalein powder by using lime solution. Detailed trap panchnama was conducted and accused was put under arrest.
6. Detailed report of the trap was prepared and was sent to the concerned Police Station for registration of offence with Police Constable. On the basis of said report, Crime No.330/1993 was registered at Sindewahi Police Station. Matter was investigated by A.C.B. Officer Mr. Pawar. During the investigation service record of the accused was called and seized. After obtaining C.A. Reports and on completion of investigation proposal was sent for obtaining sanction to lodge prosecution against the accused. Sanction order was received and then the chargesheet was filed before the Special Court.
7. On framing of charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accused pleaded not guilty. According to the accused in the pension case of father of the complainant, the delay in finalizing the case was due to error in respect of the actual date of birth of the pensioner. Also according to the accused entire pension case was prepared by his predecessor as said accused joined the said office only on 20.01.1992. According to accused, the amount regarding Group Insurance Scheme was to be recovered from the pensioner Namdeo Kodape and said deductions were not made from his salary, as his salary for the same period was not drawn because of dispute regarding the birth date of Kodape.
8. It is also the defence of the accused that after taking over the charge in January 1992, he apprised himself with the pension case of Kodape and found that there were two orders. One was regarding reversion of Kodape and another was pertaining to removing him from the service. In that order, it was mentioned that the retirement benefits should not be given to Kodape. The order regarding removing from service on 31.10.1991 and in view of the direction not to pay him retirement benefits, the entire case remained pending and there was great deal of correspondence with the higher office. According to the accused, afterwards on 27.09.1993 letter was received from the Education Department to prepare pension case on the basis of the order dated 11.04.1991. Letter dated 27.09.1993 was from Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur directing to clear the file of the pensioner and it was addressed to superior officer of the accused i.e. Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti. In response to the said directions from Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, again a letter dated 30.11.1993 was sent by Block Development Officer to Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur asking for clarification as to from which date said Namdeo Kodape was supposed to be held as retired. According to accused, because of such correspondence and asking for clarification by his superior, the pension file could not be cleared and remained pending. Moreover, certain outstanding amounts towards the Group Insurance Scheme were also required to be obtained prior to clearing the pension case papers and releasing the amount for unpaid salary.
9. According to the accused, on the day of the trap, inspection in the office was going on and at that time complainant wanted to deposit the arrears towards contribution of Group Insurance Scheme for his father. On such desire of the complainant, the accused told him to deposit the amount with Cashier. When the complainant went to Cashier he was not in the seat and hence the complainant again came back to the accused and requested the accused to take money, as he wanted to go to outstation immediately and could not wait till arrival of cashier and deposit the amount with cashier. According to the accused, the complainant asked him to get xerox copies of the relevant case papers as required and he paid the amount pertaining to arrears of Group Insurance Scheme and also certain charges for preparing the Xerox copies of the documents. According to the accused, he received the said amount in good faith in order to pay the arrears. The complainant was in hurry to go away. According to the complainant, it was not the bribe amount but the amount towards the arrears of Group Insurance Scheme and miscellaneous xerox copying charges for finalizing the documentation of the pension case papers. At this juncture, it must be mentioned that in support of this defence, the accused had examined defence witness – D.W.1, who was then Senior Assistant/Clerk in the office of Panchayat Samiti, Sindewahi, where the accused was working.
10. During the trial, total seven witnesses were examined. P.W.1 is the complainant Ashok Kodape. P.W.2 is the panch witness. P.W.3 is the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, who had granted sanction to prosecute the accused. P.W.4 is the Head Constable from A.C.B. Office, who carried the letter, report and articles etc. to the office of C.A. P.W.5 is Laxminarayan Sonawane, Block Education Officer, Sindewahi then working as Senior Clerk, who deposed regarding the pension case file pending for correction of birth date of Namdeo Kodape. The said matter was pending with the accused and there were directions of the higher officer not to pass the pensionery benefits till the dispute regarding the correct birth date is solved. P.W.6 is Block Development Officer, Sindewahi. He identified the service book record of the accused. P.W.7 is Ashok Pawar, the Investigating Officer/Deputy Superintendent in the A.C.B. Office, Chandrapur and he conducted the entire trap procedure and also investigated the matter. Finding mainly the evidence of complainant and that of panch witness, trustworthy, the trial Court held that the accused was guilty of the offence charged and accordingly convicted him.
11. During the course of arguments, learned Advocate for the appellant/accused raised various points mentioning firstly, that the demand of bribe amount has not been proved conclusively, as there is discrepancy in the evidence of complainant vizaviz contents of the complaint. Secondly, the alleged delay in finalizing the pension case papers of the father of the complainant was beyond the control of the accused. Thirdly, certain dues were recoverable from the father of the complainant towards Group Insurance Scheme. Fourthly, there was defect in granting of the sanction order and non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority. Fifthly, there was no departmental inquiry conducted against the accused after the trap and as such it presupposes innocence of the accused. This defence shall be dealt with in detail hereunder at the appropriate place.
12. Prior to discussing the said defence, certain admitted position is required to be mentioned, in order to crystallize the issue. From the defence raised on behalf of the appellant/accused, it is admitted position that an amount of Rs.200/- was found with the accused, which was given on the relevant day of the trap. As such, there is no dispute regarding finding of said amount with the accused. Secondly, the Special Court had discussed the explanation of the accused for accepting the cash from the complainant. However, it was so accepted only to the extent of Rs.170/- and not for Rs.200/-. On this aspect, it is seen that explanation has been given by the Special Court in paragraph nos. 32, 33 and 35 of the impugned judgment. It is apparently accepted by the Special Court that the deductions towards Group Insurance Scheme from the salary of the employee was to be recovered @ Rs.30/- per month from June 1991 to September 1991, so that amount comes to Rs.120/- and not Rs.200/-. Further, it is observed in para 33 of the impugned judgment that the accused raised defence that the amount received by him of Group Insurance Scheme contribution and expenses for preparing the xerox copies of documents. According to defence, the expenses for xerox copies were Rs.50/-. Hence, the total amount, which according to the defence, would come to Rs.170/- as acceptable from the complainant and not Rs.200/-. On this aspect, the substantive evidence of defence witness/employee of the accused was also discussed by the Special Court in para 34 of the impugned judgment. The defence of the accused that he was to receive the amount of Group Insurance Scheme as the said amount was to be actually received by the cashier and for that purpose a note-sheet was required to be prepared by the accused. By pointing out this, it is held by the Special Court that as the note sheet was not prepared, the defence of the accused is untenable.
13. Bearing in mind the above, the defence of the appellant/accused is to be discussed in detail. Firstly, according to the defence, the demand was not proved on this aspect. There were two witnesses, one is P.W.1 Ashok Kodape and another one panch witness/P.W.2 Krishnarao Junghare. So far as P.W.2 is concerned, he has no personal knowledge as to the contents of the complaint given by P.W.1 himself, as when the pancha appeared at the office of A.C.B. complaint was already prepared and was subsequently referred to the panchas for their perusal. Moreover, there is variance in the contents of the complaint visavis the oral evidence of P.W.1 complainant. In the complaint, it is mentioned that initially demand by the appellant/accused was for an amount of Rs.500/- and it was then reduced to Rs.400/- and out of that amount, Rs.200/- were paid to the accused in March, 1992. As against this, in the substantive evidence of P.W.1, it is brought on record that the accused initially demanded Rs.500/- and at that time the complainant told him that the complainant was not in a position to pay Rs.500/-. On this, the accused reduced the demand to Rs.200/- to which the complainant agreed to pay the same. Thereafter the accused asked him to bring an amount of Rs.200/- and assured that thereafter he will forward the pension papers. On this, the complainant went to Anti Corruption Bureau Office and lodged his report, which is Exhibit-17. There is total silence regarding incident since March 1992 to November 1992 in the substantive evidence of P.W.1. This aspect, in the opinion of this Court, was not properly appreciated by the Special Court and no much emphasis was placed on this material difference of reducing the amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.200/-.
14. On the above aspect, the following authorities are cited before this Court on behalf of the appellant:-
(a) 1990 (1) Crimes 609 : State of U.P. vs. Ram Asrey.
(b) 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1201 (S.C.): V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of Police A.P.
15. By pointing out the ratio of the above authorities, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Special Court should not have raised presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in absence of proof of specific demand by the accused. Again on this aspect, reliance was placed on the following authorities as to acceptance of the defence of the accused on preponderance of the probabilities and that no necessity for the accused to establish his defence beyond reasonable doubt. The said authorities are as under:
(i) AIR 1977 SC 666 : Trilok Chand Jain vs. State of Delhi.
(ii) AIR 1979 SC 1455 : Man Singh vs. Delhi Administration.
16. Again on the probable defence of the appellant/accused as to money received by him for lawful collection, benefit of doubt should have been given in favour of the accused, the following authority is cited before this Court:-
(1) 1997 (1) Crimes 186 (SC) : Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra.
17. During the court of arguments, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant/accused that as the Court had accepted at least taking of Rs.170/- apparently, for the purpose of arrears of Group Insurance Scheme and for xerox copying charges what would remain is a meager amount of Rs.30/- (Rs.200 – Rs.170). Hence, ratio of the following authority was taken shelter of on behalf of the appellant mentioning that where the gratification is too trivial, the Court may decline to draw presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, said authority is as under:
(1) (2009) 6 SCC 587 : A. Subair vs. State of Kerala.
18. On the delay in delivering the pension case papers of Namdeo Kodape, it is submitted that till September 1993 there was restriction and specific directions from the higher officer not to give the pensionery benefits to said employee on account of dispute regarding his real birth date and also regarding the action of removing from service. Even after the receipt of letter dated 27.09.2003 from the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, giving directions to clear the file of employee, again there was impediment in clearing the papers as a letter dated 30.11.1993 was addressed by the superior officer of the appellant/accused to Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. By said letter dated 30.11.1993 clarification was asked by Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti as to which retirement date was to be considered. Though, it is seen from the letter of the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur dated 27.09.1993 that the employee was retired on 30.09.1991, in fact, no need for getting clarification vide letter dated 30.11.1993. However, said letter dated 30.11.1993 was issued by the superior officer of the appellant/accused and it was not within the authority of the appellant to continue further with processing the pension papers when his superior had asked for clarification from the Education officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. In any event, there was definitely dispute as to which date of retirement to be accepted and definitely there was arrears to be recovered from the salary already paid to Namdeo Kodape. In any event, it must be said that the alleged delay in processing the pension papers was definitely beyond the control of the appellant/accused and this aspect should have been considered by the Special Court in favour of the accused.
19. So far as the defence as to sanctioning authority not applying its mind prior to giving sanction, substantive evidence of P.W.3 Shyamlal Goyal is brought to the notice of this Court. He was Chief Executive Officer in the year 1994 at Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur and he was the competent authority to remove the appellant/accused from service. The following portion from the evidence of said witness was brought to the notice of this Court, which reads as under:
“I had received proposal for according sanction for launching prosecution against the accused in respect of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. Said proposal was received to me from A.C.B., Nagpur. Along with proposal I had received all the papers of investigation. So also I had received draft sanction order. After perusing the draft sanction order, and after making necessary changes and correction of grammatical mistakes I passed the sanction order. I also examined the investigation papers received along with the proposal.”
20. Much emphasis was placed on behalf of the appellant that only necessary changes and corrections of grammatical mistakes were done by the sanctioning authority and then he passed the Sanction Order. He was already sent the draft sanction order by A.C.B. This clearly indicates non application of mind, further argued. Though in cross-examination P.W.3 denied the suggestion given to him that he did not examine the investigation papers before passing sanction order and mechanically passed sanction order, the effect created by the substantive evidence in the examination-in-chief still remains. Also through this witness, it is brought on record by the defence that no departmental inquiry was initiated against the appellant/accused on the allegation of acceptance of bribe. Again through this witness it was brought on record that dispute in respect of date of birth of Mr. Kodape, the matter was referred back to Panchayat Samiti for verification and that Mr. Kodape had mentioned wrong date while preparing service record. In the opinion of this Court, this argument and defence as to sanctioning authority not applying its mind properly has not been dealt with in proper perspective by the trial Court.
21. Counter to the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the following authority by submitting that demand and acceptance of bribe once proved, these are the incriminating circumstances against the accused. The said authority is as under:
2010(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.)513 : State represented by CBI, Hydrabad vs. G. Prem Raj.
22. On this aspect, it is held by this Court as discussed earlier that there is doubt as to the exact demand made by the accused considering the variance in the statement in the compliant and the evidence before the trial Court. Moreover, the substantive evidence of complainant and also that of panch witness/P.W.2 discussed by the Special Court in para 22 of the impugned judgment, indicates that there was no demand by the accused. However, complainant himself told that he brought the amount as asked by the accused. This relevant portion from the substantive evidence of complainant is reproduced as under:
“Then myself and the person who was sent with me went to the office of accused. Accused was present in the office. That day Chief Officer had visited Panchayat Samiti. When we met the accused. Accused asked us to wait outside the office and said that he will come out after some time. So we came out of the office of accused and stayed outside. After some time Chief Officer left Panchayat Samiti Office. Then accused himself came to call us. Then we followed the accused. Then I said to the accused that I have brought the amount as asked by the accused. On that accused asked me to pay the amount. On that I paid the amount from my pocket of bush shirt, to the accused. The accused accepted the same.”
23. On this aspect, substantive evidence of P.W.2 is as under:
“Then myself and the complainant were sent to the office of the accused. Accordingly myself and complainant went to the office of Panchayat Samiti. When we reached there accused Jumde was present in the office. Complainant told me by pointing out to the accused that he was Mr. Jumde. Besides that there was name plate of Mr. Jumde. Myself and complainant went to Jumde. Complainant asked Jumde as to what had happened about the case of the complainant. That time accused asked the complainant to wait outside by saying that he was busy as some higher officer of Zilla Parishad had come to Panchayat Samiti. On that myself and the complainant came out of the office of accused. We were waiting there. Afterwards the officer of Zila Parishad left Panchayat Samiti office by car. Then accused came out of the office to us. He asked us to accompany him for tea. On that we went to have tea near tea stall near the compound of office. Then we had tea Kodape paid the amount i.e. bill of tea. Then we went to toilet. I was with them. There the complainant asked the accused about his work. Then complainant said to the accused that he has brought the amount. On that accused asked the complainant to pay it. On that complainant paid that amount to the accused.”
24. After going through the substantive evidence of complainant and panch witness, it is further observed by the Special Court in para 23 of the judgment, as follows:
“From evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that evidence of these witnesses is consistent on the material points. From the evidence of these witnesses it is clear that accused made demand of amount. On that complainant gave the amount to the accused.”
25. In fact this finding as to demand by the accused on the day of the trap is not inconsonance with the substantive evidence of the witnesses, as mentioned above, as to what had happened on the day of the trap. It must be said that the Special Court had not appreciated the said evidence in proper perspective and fallen in error.
26. Considering the overall effect of the evidence led before the Special Court, it must be said that the defence pressed on behalf of the appellant/accused was probable and acceptable on preponderance of the probabilities and in that event the benefit of doubt should have been given in favour of the accused.
27. In the result, the present appeal succeeds and same is accordingly allowed. The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2003 is quashed and set aside. The fine amount, if already paid, shall be refunded to the present appellant, who is substituted in place of the original appellant/accused since deceased.