Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Kashinath Shridhar Wani on 11 February, 2009
Author: V.R. Kingaonkar
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 173 OF 1997
The State of Maharashtra APPELLANT
VERSUS
Kashinath Shridhar Wani,
Kopargaon Railway Sub-Post
under Police Station (GRP),
Manmad. RESPONDENT
.....
Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil, A.P.P.for the appellant/State. Mr. R.S. Shinde, advocate for the respondent.
.....
[CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] DATE : 11th February, 2009
---------------------------
ORAL JUDGEMENT :
1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement of acquittal rendered by learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar, in Special Case No. 7 of 1991 whereby the respondent came to be acquitted for offence punishable under section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The respondent was attached to Railway Police Station, Kopargaon, as an Assistant Police Sub ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (2) Inspector. Complainant Sk. Rashid used to reside opposite to Railway Station premises at Kopargaon alongwith his brother. At the material time, complainant Sk. Rashid (PW1) was working as Pointsman attached to Establishment of Railway Station, Yeola.
The distance between Yeola and Kopargaon is approximately 19/20 kms. He used to commute from Kopargaon to attend his work at Yeola Railway Station during the duty hours. His younger brother Sk. Sahid (PW2) was a temporary waterman attached to Kopargaon Railway Station. His brother had some quarrel with one Devidas Janrao and Arun Janrao, who are brothers interse, and ig run railway canteen at Kopargaon. The incident of quarrel between them occurred on 11th June, 1991 on account of money due from him for the purchases made by him from the canteen. There was exchange of abuses between them. The elder brother of the said canteen proprietors is member of Railway Protection Force. In the evening, said two (2) brothers i.e. Devidas and Arun, their elder brother and some railway police were seen coming towards house of Sk. Sahid (PW2). He suspected that they were likely to create some trouble for him. He clandestinely left the house from backdoor and went to Manmad. He resided there for about 5/6 days without giving intimation to his elder brother or any member of the family.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (3)3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15th June, 1991, the respondent went to Manmad in the morning. He met Sk. Sahid (PW2) and assured him that he need not be scared. The respondent asked him to accompany him to Kopargaon. Both of them came to Kopargaon Railway Station. The respondent then called Arun Janrao. The respondent intervened and settled the dispute. Thereafter, Arun Janrao left the place.
The respondent then demanded Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/-
for closure of the criminal case. Thereupon, Sk.
Sahid expressed inability on the ground that he had not attended the duty for 5/6 days.
4. The prosecution alleges that on 18th June, 1991, Sk. Sahid (PW2) approached the Railway Station Master with an application to allow him to join the duty. The respondent then recommended Station Master Shri Gadre to permit him to join the duty. The respondent lateron repeated the demand for Rs. 300/-
to Rs. 400/- saying that he had closed the criminal case. The demand was communicated by Sk. Sahid (PW2) to his elder brother - complainant Sk. Rashid (PW1).
5. The prosecution further alleges that on 5th July, 1991, the respondent demanded the amount from Sk. Rashid (PW1) at about 5/5.30 p.m. when they met each other at Railway Station, Kopargaon. At that time, complainant Sk. Rashid (PW1) assured the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (4) respondent that on next day, he would pay the amount after receiving the salary. However, Sk. Rashid (PW1) was unwilling to pay such amount. He, therefore, approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) office at Nasik on 6th July, 1991 and gave his complaint (Exh-31). A trap was arranged by Police Inspector Nitin Mitkar (PW5) on basis of such complaint. He called two (2) panch witnesses to the ACB office. He explained to them the complaint of Sk.
Rashid (PW1). The complainant - Sk. Rashid produced one (1) currency note of 100/- and four (4) currency notes of Rs. 50/- denomination, which were smeared with Anthracene powder applied with help of a cotton gauze. The panchas and complainant - Sk. Rashid were informed as to how the use of Anthracene powder causes bluish sparkle on the part of the body or the article which comes into its contact, when examined under the ultraviolet rays. A pre-trap panchanama was thereafter drawn. One of the panch,namely, Pandharinath (PW3) was asked to accompany complainant Sk. Rashid (PW1) at the time of making payment of the bribe amount. Another panch and the members of raiding party were to keep vigil from close quarters.
The complainant was asked to give signal immediately after the bribe amount was accepted by the respondent.
6. The tainted currency notes were thereafter put in the pocket of the complainant. The members of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (5) raiding party went to a place near sugar factory at Kopargaon in a jeep vehicle. Except complainant - Sk.
Rashid and panch Pandharinath, others remained behind whereas both of them went towards the railway station.
The complainant - Sk. Rashid met the respondent at the railway platform. They together went towards the police chowki. The respondent then asked complainant
- Sk. Rashid whether he received the payment. The complainant Sk. Rashid asked as to what happened to case against his brother. The respondent then asked whether he had brought the cash amount as was asked.
The complainant - Sk. Rashid told him that he had
brought Rs.
ig 300/- as per the directions and asked
further whether it should be paid then or on next day.
The respondent then told him that if he desired to
bury dead, then he shall pay
(-----------------------------). The respondent also
informed the complainant - Sk. Rashid that he had
said the same thing to the canteen boys. The
complainant - Sk. Rashid then gave the tainted
currency notes of Rs. 300/- to the respondent. The
respondent accepted the amount and put the same in the left pocket of his shirt. The complainant - Sk.
Rashid came out of the police chowki and signalled the members of the raiding party. The members of the raiding party including second panch Patil rushed to the police chowki. The respondent was nabbed. The tainted currency notes were recovered from his shirt ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (6) pocket. The shirt pocket and the currency notes as well as fingers of the respondent were found to bear bluish glaze under the ultraviolet lamp. P.I. Nitin Mitkar seized the tainted currency notes under a post-trap panchanama drawn then and there.
7. P.I. Nitin Mitkar lodged FIR. On basis of the material collected during course of investigation, a report was submitted to the sanctioning authority for the purpose of prosecution of the respondent. The competent officer issued sanction order (Exh-39). The respondent was thereafter chargesheeted to stand his trial for the offences punishable under section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge. He denied truth into the accusations that he had demanded unlawful gratification for omission to initiate criminal case against Sk. Sahid (PW2) and for the purpose of recommendation to the Station Master to allow him to join the duty. He denied that the amount was accepted by way of illegal gratification. According to him, complainant Sk. Rashid had borrowed an amount of Rs.
300/- from him due to family difficulties. It was said handloan which was being returned at the material time. He asserted that due to illwill against him, he was falsely framed in the criminal case. Hence, he sought acquittal from the charge. He also disputed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (7) validity of the sanction order.
8. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all five (5) witnesses in support of its case. The learned Special Judge held that the demand for illegal gratification was not proved. The learned Special Judge further held that though the amount was accepted by the respondent, yet, that by itself did not prove necessary ingredients of the offence. The learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the sanction order is invalid due to non-application of mind by the competent authority. In keeping with such findings, the respondent ig came to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
9. Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil, learned A.P.P., strenuously argued that the acceptance of the bribe amount by the respondent is duly established. He would submit that presumption under section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is required to be drawn. He invited my attention to statement of the respondent under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and pointed out that the acceptance of the tainted currency notes and recovery thereof from his possession is admitted. He contended that there could not be any loan transaction between the complainant and the respondent when there was illwill between them. He would submit that there was oral settlement ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (8) brought about by the respondent to close the future criminal case which was likely to be instituted against Sk. Sahid (PW2) and, therefore, mere fact that there was absence of record in this behalf could not be sufficient to dislodge the motive for payment of the illegal gratification. He urged, therefore, to allow the appeal and convict the respondent for the charge. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Shinde supports the impugned judgement.
10. Crucial points to be determined in this appeal are :
(i) Whether it is proved beyond a reasonable realm of doubt that the respondent demanded amount of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- from complainant - PW Sk. Rashid in order to facilitate compromise of a criminal case which was to be initiated against his brother, namely, PW Sk. Sahid or as a remuneration to omit to initiate such kind of criminal case against him ?
(ii) Whether it is proved beyond a reasonable realm
of doubt that the respondent accepted amount
of Rs. 300/- from complainant - PW Sk.
Rashid on 6th July, 1991 being reward for
forbearing to do something or to omit his
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 :::
(9)
official act of instituting the criminal case
against PW Sk. Sahid or for the purpose of
alleged recommendation to allow him to join
duty as waterman ?
11. The prosecution has come out with a case that
the respondent demanded illegal gratification with a
view to mitigate a probable criminal case which was
likely to be instituted against PW Sk. Sahid.
Another limb of the prosecution case is that the money was demanded because the respondent recommended to Station Master Shri Gadre that PW Sk. Sahid may be allowed to join the duty though he was absent for about six (6) days. The respondent examined DW1 Jamshed as a defence witness. The testimony of DW Jamshed purports to show that PW Sk. Rashid was on duty at Yeola Railway Station during the relevant period. He corroborated the attendance certificate (Exh-51). However, he admitted that practice of the railway workers was that they used to travel freely without ticket. They used to frequently return to the home inspite of their duty being at a particular place. Therefore, his version is of no much significance.
12. Coming to the version of PW2 Sk. Sahid, it emerges that the incident about quarrel between him and the operators of the Railway canteen had taken ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (10) place in the evening of 11th June, 1991. He returned home after the exchange of abuses between himself and said Arun Janrao. His version purports to show that, in the evening, he noticed that said Arun alongwith Railway policemen were seen coming to his house. He, therefore, bolted away from the back door. He went to Manmad without informing anyone. Obviously, his brother was not knowing whereabouts of PW Sk. Sahid until the respondent brought him back to Kopargaon on 15th June, 1991. It is the version of PW Sk. Sahid that the respondent assured him that nothing untoward will happen and, therefore, he shall return. On the same day, the respondent called aggrieved person Arun at the police outpost, Kopargaon and pacified both the parties. The respondent settled the dispute amongst them. It was thereafter that the respondent demanded Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- for closure of the criminal complaint case. Thus, according to PW Sk. Sahid, the first demand was made somewhere in the evening of 15th June, 1991 when he alone was present. He never stated that his brother Sk. Rashid was also present at the relevant time. His version does not show that his brother attended such kind of meeting for the settlement of the dispute in the relevant evening.
The recitals of the complaint (Exh-31), however, would show that Arun Ganpat Janrao had filed a criminal complaint at the railway police station. The recitals of the FIR further show that after about three (3) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (11) days' absentia of Sk. Sahid, while he was taking his brother to the Railway Station Master Shri Gadre for permitting him to join the duty, the respondent met him on the railway station and demanded them to pay money for mitigation of the criminal case. It is stated in the complaint (Exh-31) that the respondent accompanied them to the office of the Railway Station Master - Shri Gadre and recommended him to permit Sk.
Sahid to join the duty. The recitals of the FIR would show that thereafter while the complainant and PW Sk.
Sahid were returning, the respondent demanded Rs.
300/Rs. 400 to close the criminal case and for recommendation made by him to allow the brother of the complainant to join the duty.
13. The version of PW Sk. Sahid, on the other hand, shows that such demand was put forth on 15th June, 1991 when the respondent brought about the settlement between Arun Janrao and himself at the railway police chowki. He stated that after about three (3) days on 18th June, 1991, the complainant -
PW Sk. Rashid met him at the railway station, Kopargaon when he had gone there to submit application to the Station Master for allowing him to join the duty. Obviously, there is significant discrepancy regarding the time of the first demand made by the respondent for the so called illegal gratification.
It is the version of PW Sk. Sahid that he, PW Sk.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (12)Rashid and the respondent went to office of the Railway Station Master. His version purports to show that he and his brother entered the office of Station Master Shri Gadre whereas the respondent awaited outside that office. He does not say, even remotely, that the respondent entered the office of the Station Master and recommended that he shall be allowed to join the duty. According to him, after he and his brother went outside the office of the Station Master, the respondent told them that he had closed the criminal case and, therefore, amount of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- will have to be paid to him. Needless to say, the so called demand was made after the contemplated work of putting an end to the criminal case was done. It was not a demand for omitting to initiate the criminal case. There is significant variance in the versions of PW Sk. Rashid (complainant) and PW Sk. Sahid in the context of the nature of the demand made by the respondent and the period of such demand. If the respondent had not entered the office of the Railway Station Master Shri Gadre, then there was no question of his intervention and recommendation to the Station Master for allowing PW Sk. Rashid to join the duty. I mean to say, he had not used his influence over the Station Master -
Shri Gadre and, hence, there was no question of seeking any unlawful monetary gain for such purpose.
It may be stated here that during search of the office ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (13) record of the respondent, admittedly, there was no trace of any criminal complaint filed by Arun Janrao against PW Sk. Rashid. Nor even a N.C. case was registered against PW Sk. Rashid. The evidence on the record would make it manifest that the respondent had not taken any criminal action and Arun Janrao had not filed any complaint against PW Sk. Sahid till that time. It is the version of PWSk. Sahid that the complainant PW Sk. Rashid was not with him when the respondent demanded the amount from him. It appears that Sk. Sahid partly declined to support the case of prosecution and was subjected to cross-examination by the A.P.P. Nothing of significance, however, could be gathered from his cross-examination.
14. It is pertinent to note that PW Sk. Sahid admitted, unequivocally, that the respondent had no concern with his employment as a railway waterman. He admitted that he owed an amount of Rs. 60/- to the proprietors of the railway canteen. According to him, on 16th June, 1991, he alone met the Station Master Shri Gadre and urged to allow him to join the duty.
The Station Master then directed him to submit an application. He admitted that he was unaware of the complaint lodged by his brother with the office of A.C.B., Nasik on 6th July, 1991.
15. So far as version of PW1 Sk. Rashid ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (14) (complainant) is concerned, it may be gathered that he was not knowing where PW Sk. Rashid had gone after the quarrel between the latter and Arun Janrao. He states that after 3/4 days, PW Sk. Rashid returned to Kopargaon. He further deposed that while he was taking PW Sk. Rashid to the Station Master, the respondent informed that Arun had filed a criminal case against PW Sk. Rashid and, therefore, he will have to pay the amount for compromising the criminal case. This part of his version is quite discrepant with the recitals of the complaint (Exh-31). He too does not say that the respondent recommended to Station Master ig Shri Gadre that PW Sk. Sahid may be allowed to join the duty. Obviously, there could be no payment for so called recommendations of the respondent to the Station Master. The Station Master
- Shri Gadre was not examined by the prosecution.
Nor, the aggrieved person, namely, Arun Janrao was examined in order to know what kind of criminal case was likely to be filed against PW Sk. Rashid.
16. The version of PW Sk. Rashid purports to show that on 5th July, 1991, again the demand was made by the respondent to him. Then he assured to pay the amount on next day. The version of PW Sk. Rashid purports to show that on next day i.e. 6th July, 1991, he visited the office of A.C.B. at Nasik at about 10.00/11.00 a.m. He lodged the complaint ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (15) (Exh-31). He narrated as to how the trap was thereafter laid by P.I. Nitin Mitkar. He further narrated as to how the payment was made to the respondent at the time of the trap on 6th July, 1991.
He deposed on the line of his complaint.
Cross-examination of PW Sk. Rashid would show that he had taken away a railway property (lamp) to his house without permission. He admitted that the respondent had asked him to return that railway property. He further admitted that he was required to return the said property at the railway office. He admitted further that he was aggrieved because the respondent had insisted ig him to deposit the railway property at the railway office. It was suggested to him that the respondent had lent him Rs. 300/- which he had returned at the material time. No doubt, the defence story regarding so called loan transaction is unfounded. It does not stand to reason that any loan would have been given by the respondent when the relations between them were soar due to his act of calling upon PW Sk. Rashid to return the railway lamp.
17. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil would submit that the story about the loan transaction is false and, therefore, acceptance of tainted currency notes of Rs. 300/- by the respondent would give rise to presumption that it was bribe amount.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (16)The question of raising presumption under section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would arise when there is cogent evidence regarding initial demand. The accused may take various defences. It may be found that his defence is worthless. Even so, it is for the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable realm of doubt. The prosecution relied upon version of PW3 Pandharinath in support of the evidence about the trap. He is an independent panch witness. His version purports to show that on 6th July, 1991, he was called by P.I. Nitin Mitkar in the A.C.B. Office, Nasik. He narrated as to how the use of Anthracene powder was explained by P.I. Nitin Mitkar to the panchas. He deposed that currency notes of Rs. 300/- were smeared with Anthracene powder in his presence and instructions were given to attend the trap. His version purports to show that a pre-trap panchanama (Exh-35) was drawn after the currency notes of Rs. 300/- were smeared with Anthracene powder were given to PW Sk. Rashid. He and the other members of the police party, the second panch and PW Sk. Rashid went to Kopargaon railway station in a police jeep.
They got down near premises of the Cooperative Sugar Factory which are at a short distance from the railway station. His version purports to show that at about 8.15 p.m., he and PW Sk. Rashid went to the railway station. They met the respondent. The respondent asked PW Sk. Rashid whether he had come (----------).
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (17)The respondent then inquired whether PW Sk. Rashid had received the salary. After a preliminary talk, PW Sk. Rashid asked the respondent what had happened about the work of his brother. The respondent then replied that if he wanted to bury the dead, then he should first pay the money and that same thing was told to the other boys (--------------------------
----------------------------------------------------).
The response of PW Sk. Rashid was to ask a further question whether the money should be paid then or on next day. It was thereafter that PW Sk. Rashid handed over the tainted currency notes to the respondent.
Thus, it is quite clear that at that time, the respondent did not quantify the amount to be paid and the purpose for which it was to be paid. The reference to other boys (----------------) appears to be in relation to Arun Janrao and his brother. It is nobody's case that the respondent had demanded similar kind of amount from Arun Janrao and his brother.
Therefore, there was no question of telling the same thing to Arun Janrao and his brother by the respondent. Obviously, one of the inference that can be drawn is that the money was demanded by Arun Janrao and his brother and after payment, they were not to take action against PW Sk. Sahid. The version of PW Pandharinath corroborates the post-trap panchanama (Exh-36).
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (18)18. Cross-examination of PW Pandharinath reveals that the respondent immediately gave an explanation about the amount which was accepted. He admitted that prior to reaching the railway station, he had come to know about the quarrel which had taken place between Arun Ganpat Janrao and brother of the complainant on account of amount. He does not know whether the utterances of the respondent viz.
"-------------------------------" was in relation to the proprietors of the canteen. Thus, his version is useful only to reach conclusion that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the respondent at the relevant time.
19. The nature of conversation between complainant
- PW Sk. Rashid and the respondent, at the time of alleged trap, does not specifically show that the respondent demanded bribe amount from him. Nor it shows that the respondent insisted for the payment.
It was a conditional and optional proposal put forth by him. What he stated to the complainant - PW Sk.
Rashid was that if the dead was to be buried, then the money may be paid. This was indicative of option given to PW Sk. Rashid to pay if he wanted to sort out the previous dispute or any other claim whatever was due from him. As stated before, version of PW Sk.
Sahid shows that the respondent had informed him about closure of the criminal case on 15th June, 1991 itself ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (19) after the oral discussion between said aggrieved person by name Arun Janrao and him. Needless to say, the very motive for demand of such amount is rendered in the realm of reasonalbe doubt.
20. The time-gap between the alleged demand for the first time and the trap also is one of the factor which would make the prosecution case weak. According to PW Sk. Sahid, the first demand was made on 15th June, 1991 whereas according to PW Sk. Rashid, it was made on 18th June, 1991. The trap was laid on 6th July, 1991. The record shows that PW Sk. Rashid had developed antipathy towards the respondent. The version of PW5 P.I. Nitin Mitkar corroborates the prosecution case regarding the trap and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the respondent. He denied that he had forwarded a draft sanction order alongwith the relevant documents forwarded to the sanctioning authority i.e. PW4 Iqbal Ahmed. At this juncture, version of PW Iqbal Ahmed may be considered. He was Superintendent of Police and was competent authority to accord sanction for the prosecution of the respondent. He corroborated the sanction order (Exh-39). According to him, after going through the relevant papers for 3/4 days, he was satisfied that there was a prima facie case to accord the sanction. He admitted that he had received the draft sanction order alongwith the relevant papers.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (20)Thus, the version of PW P.I. Nitin Mitkar in this behalf is contradicted by PW Iqbal Ahmed. It is admitted by PW Iqbal Ahmed that the complaint (Exh-31) did not show that the respondent had demanded amount for doing any official work and the nature of such demand was not specified. He admitted that in the complaint (Exh-31), it was not stated that on 18th June, 1991, the respondent attempted to accept the bribe. The sanction order (Exh-39), however, shows that such act was attributed to the respondent. The first part of sanction order reads as follows :
".......
ig is alleged to have committed the
following acts.
(1) On or about 18th June, 1991, attempted
to obtain a sum of Rs. 300/- / Rs. 400/- for
himself.
(2) On or about 5th July, 1991, attempted
to accept a sum of Rs. 300/- and directed the
complainant to pay the same on 6th July, 1991
in the Kopargaon Railway sub-post Kopargaon."
There is nothing on record to show that on 18th June, 1991, there was an attempt by the respondent to accept the amount of Rs. 300/- or Rs. 400/- from PW Sk.
Rashid. The cross-examination of PW Iqbal Ahmed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (21) purports to show that the sanction order incorrectly shows the date as 7th July, 1991 as the day on which the pecuniary advantage of Rs. 300/- was received by the respondent by corrupt or illegal means. He admits that in the complaint (Exh-31) or the papers of investigation, there is no reference to date 7th July, 1991 as the date of payment of illegal gratification.
He candidly admits as follows :
"It is correct that these words were written in the draft of sanction, which I received alongwith the papers."
Thus, it is amply clear that he reproduced the written date pertaining to acceptance of illegal gratification, while issuing the sanction order (Exh-39) on the basis of the draft sanction order received by him. There is room to say, therefore, that the sanction order was issued as per the draft sanction order received by him and without independent application of mind to the papers of investigation.
The Trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the sanction order (Exh-39) is invalid due to non-application of mind by the witness - PW Iqbal Ahmed.
21. Mr. Shinde invited my attention to "Manohar Manohar Dhondu Sawant v. State of Maharashtra & another" 2006 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (22) (2) AIR Bom R 294.
294 A single Bench of this Court held that mere acceptance of money by the accused is not sufficient to prove commission of offence under section 7 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It is held that the demand of bribe for the purpose of doing or ommitting to do something in the discharge of the official duty is required to be proved before any presumption can be drawn. In "State State of Maharashtra v.
Ramchandra Sudam Ingale" 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 3174,
3174 a
single Bench of this Court held that in an appeal
against acquittal, where sanction for prosecution was
found to be improper, the acquittal of the accused did not call for interference. It is well settled that when there are two (2) views possible, one which is favourable to the accused should be preferred unless another view is so strong that no other inference than the guilt of the accused can be reached. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of acquittal does not suffer from any serious legal infirmity.
22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgement of acquittal is confirmed. The bail bonds of the respondent be deemed as cancelled.
[ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 ::: (23) NPJ/CRIAPL173-97 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:20:33 :::