Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Gokulchand Rupchand Pardeshi on 17 December, 2018
Author: T.V. Nalawade
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Appln. By State No. 5/18
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
36 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.5 OF 2018
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
GOKULCHAND RUPCHAND PARDESHI
...
APP for Appellant : Mr. S.J. Salgare
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh
...
CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 17/12/2018.
ORDER :
1. The proceeding is filed by State for grant of leave to file appeal against judgment and order of Special Case No. 1/2016, which was pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. The Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Heard the learned APP. Seen the record of evidence. Seen the reasoning given by the Trial Court for acquittal.
2. The action was started by Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on the basis of complaint made by one Suraj Ippar. He was in the business of plying taxis and he had three vehicles at the relevant time. He had engaged two drivers for this business. On ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 09:28:55 ::: Appln. By State No. 5/18 2 31.7.2015 when he was carrying passengers in his vehicle from Ahmednagar to Kopargaon, at Sidhant Hotel, present respondent, who was traffic constable intercepted the vehicle. It is allegation of the complainant that the respondent knew that he was having three taxis and respondent demanded Rs.500/- per vehicle per month as his illegal gratification for not filing cases in respect of three vehicles. According to him, it was a practice of respondent to collect Rs.500/- per vehicle from the owners of the vehicles and if the amount is not paid, he used to file cases against those vehicles. When the demand was made on 31.7.2015, he approached ACB on 1.8.2015. ACB first arranged for confirmation of demand and after confirmation, trap was laid. In the presence of panch witnesses, the accused demanded and accepted amount of Rs.1500/- from the original complainant. During post trap panchanama, the tainted money was recovered from the pocket of shirt of the respondent and anthracene powder was also found on his hands. F.I.R. was given by ACB Officer and after completing formalities, case was filed.
3. Before Trial Court, the complainant is examined and panch witnesses are also examined in addition to the examination of the Investigating Officer. It appears that the original complainant ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 09:28:55 ::: Appln. By State No. 5/18 3 gave evidence on incident of demand, confirmation of the demand, but while giving evidence on trap, he stated in his evidence that he had put the tainted money in the pocket of shirt of the constable. Due to this circumstance, the Trial Court has given decision of acquittal. The decision given by the Trial Court does not show that the Trial Court has considered other circumstances like the presence of anthracene powder on the fingers of the accused showing that he had handled the tainted money. Further, the provisions of section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not even touched by the learned Judge of the Trial Court.
4. The learned APP placed reliance on the observations made by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2003 and other connected matters decided at Nagpur Bench of this Court on 8.5.2012 [Shivrao Wamanrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra]. He also placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in two cases reported as AIR 1964 SC 575 [Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra] and 1964 (2) Cri.L.J. 65 [Ram Sagar Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar]. The Apex Court has considered the old provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in which there was similar presumption available under section 4. The manner in which ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 09:28:55 ::: Appln. By State No. 5/18 4 presumption is used and the burden which is casted is discussed by the Apex Court. In the present matter also, there is recovery of tainted money and there is also evidence on demand of illegal gratification. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is not that convincing. This Court holds that there is good arguable case for the State in the appeal. In the result, the application is allowed. Leave is granted.
5. This Court has granted leave to file appeal to the State and reason for the same are given. For the same reasons, the appeal is admitted. Comply the provision of section 390 of Cr.P.C.
6. Sent the record back to the Trial Court for preparation of paper book and list the matter when paper book is received along with record.
[T.V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/ ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 09:28:55 :::