Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The demand of Rs. 200/- by the accused-appellant from Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole who was offered for and on behalf of Shankar Pandurang Ingole as bribe for effecting mutation in the revenue record in favour of the said Shankar Pandurang Ingole, put the accused-appellant for trial for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act corresponding to section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short "the Old P.C. Act"). The accused-appellant was charged to the effect that he being a Patwari of village Malewada in Bhiwapur Tahsil, District Nagpur, i.e. a public servant, demanded and accepted Rs. 200/- on 16-5-1986 at about 4.45 p.m. at Bhiwapur from Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official act, which he was otherwise and legally entitled for making entries in the mutation register in favour of Shankar Pandurang Ingole and his brother in respect of the field survey Nos. 199/1, 199/2, 199/3 of Malewada, which stood in the name of their mother as per the will made by the father of Shankar Pandurang Ingole and, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the P.C. Act corresponding to Section 161 of Indian Penal Code. The accused appellant was also charged to the effect that he being the Patwari of the said village i.e. the public servant, on 16-5-1986 at about 4.45 p.m. at Bhiwapur obtained for himself pecuniary advantage of Rs. 200/- from Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole by abusing his legal position as a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, and thereby committed and offence punishable under section 13(c)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act corresponding to Section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the old P.C. Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 16-5-1986 Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole (P.W. 1) lodged a complaint (Exh. 14) in Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. It is alleged in the said complaint that he resides at Malewada and carries on agricultural operations. Shankar Pandurang Ingole happens to be his cousin and he is posted at Nagpur. He supervises the agricultural land of Shankar Ingole situated at Malewada and manages the affairs in connection thereof. The father of Shankar, Pandurang Zibal Ingole, bequeathed his agricultural land to Bhigirathibai i.e. the mother of Shankar Ingole, who also died somewhere in the year 1983 and after her death the said land was to be mutated in favour of Shankar Ingole and his three brothers. Shankar Ingole came to Malewada and asked them to request the Patwari of Malewada for taking steps in effecting the mutation of the said agricultural lands in his name. In the month of March 1986 Shankar again came to Malewada and he and the complainant went to the accused-appellant and both of them met the accused-appellant. At that time Shankar Ingole requested the accused to effect mutation in his name and the name of his two brothers after the death of his mother Bhagirathibai. The will of Smt. Bhagirathiabi had already been handed over to the appellant-accused by the complainant prior to that. According to the complainant, the accused-appellant told him and Shankar that the mutation cannot be effected free of cost and demanded the bribe of Rs. 200/- and said that if the said amount was not paid to him, he would not carry on the mutation. Both of them returned and Shankar told the complainant that he should keep in touch with the accused and get the work done. On 13-5-1986 when the accused came to Malewada, the complainant met him and requested him to do the mutation work of Shankar and on that the accused reminded him of Rs. 200/- for effecting the work. Then the complainant told the accused that Rs. 200/- was a big amount, but the accused-appellant insisted that he would not accept even one paisa less than Rs. 200/-. He then told him that he would bring the amount within a day or two after meeting Shankar. The accused-appellant told him that he would not come to Malewada now, and if he has to get the work done, then he has to pay the amount at Tahsil Office or at his residence. The complainant then alleged that he assured him that he would bring and pay the said amount till noon of 16-5-1986. He met his cousin Shankar Ingole and told him the aforesaid facts. He and Shankar then both decided that a complaint be lodged with the Anti-Corruption Department instead of giving the amount of Rs. 200/- to the accused-appellant as a bribe. In this view, Rs. 200/- was deposited with the Anti-Corruption Department by Madhukar Ingole.

7. The Special Judge, Nagpur, heard the learned counsel for the parties and vide his judgment dated 28-2-1990 found the accused-appellant guilty of the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced the accused-appellant to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for 15 days on each count.

8. Mr. S. V. Manohar, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, has contended in this appeal that the accused has been falsely implicated because the accused-appellant had supplied copies of documents to Ishwar Raut against whom the complainant had filed one suit. The grudge of the complainant and his brothers was that though the accused-appellant had supplied the copies of the revenue records to their opponent Ishwar Raut but the same have not been supplied to them. Shri Manohar strenuously urged before me that the prosecution case that the accused-appellant demanded the bribe of Rs. 200/- from Madhukar (P.W. 1) for and on behalf of Shankar for effecting the mutation in the mutation register on 16-5-1986 at about 4.45 p.m. at Bhiwapur, is totally false and cannot be believed because the mutation in favour of Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11) and his brother Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) had already been effected on 2-1-1986 and the said mutation was already certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986 in their presence and, therefore, the demand of the alleged bribe by the accused appellant for effecting mutation cannot be conceived, much less believed. Mr. Manohar also submitted that when no such demand for bribe was made by the accused-appellant, the question of his having pecuniary advantage of Rs. 200/- by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise did not arise. The learned counsel also submitted that after the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 and duly certified on 31-1-1986, the partition took place between Shankar and his brothers, and the bothers of Shankar sold their share by registered sale-deed dated 5-5-1986 and therefore the prosecutions story of the demand of bribe by the accused-appellant is unbelievable Mr. Manohar relied on the decision in Trilokchand Jain v. State of Delhi, .

13. Now adverting to the evidence of Madhukar Ingole (P.W. 1), it would be seen that he has deposed before the Court that when he met the accused for effecting mutation in the revenue register in favour of Shankar Ingole and his brothers after the death of their mother Bhagirathibai for doing this work the accused demanded the bribe of Rs. 200/-. At that time Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11) was also with him. He has further deposed that on 13-5-1986 when the accused came to Malewada and he requested him to do the mutation work of Shankar Ingole, the accused reminded him that he has already told him that the said work would only be done, provided he pays Rs. 200/- to him. P.W. 11 Shankar Ingole has deposed that after the death of his mother, the name of their mother continued in the revenue records and since it was required to be corrected he asked his brother Madhukar Ingole (P.W. 1) to get the mutation effected in his name and in the name of his brothers. He further deposed that the copy was handed over to the Patwari and the map got prepared from the D.L.R. to the Patwari for effecting mutation. This took place in the year 1985. Madhukar had told him so, and in March 1986 Madhukar and Shankar Ingole went personally to the Patwari and met him for getting the name mutated. At that time the accused told them that the work cannot be done free of cost and the accused demanded Rs. 200/- for getting the mutation done P.W. 11 Shankar has stated in his testimony that on 31-1-1986 he was in his office at Nagpur. He further stated that the entry dated 31-1-1986 was noticed in the register when the Police Inspector Abdul Razzak (P.W. 12) inspected the mutation register. He also admitted that a copy of the will was found in the office of the Land Revenue Inspector. P.W. 9 Bhaiya Ingole, one of the brothers of Shankar, has deposed before the Court that he was working as a Clerk in United Commercial Bank, Mahakali Branch, Chandrapur. He stated about his ignorance of moving the application to the Revenue authorities for mutation of the fields after the death of his grand-mother. He also deposed that on 31-1-1986 he did not appear before the Revenue Inspector. However, in cross-examination, he has admitted that the field which had come to his share has been sold by him to Ishwar Bajirao Raut on 5-5-1986 by the registered sale-deed. P.W. 7 Dayaram Ingole, brother of Shankar, has testified that he was a Government servant and during the period from December 1985 of February 1986 he was on commuted leave and during this period he had no occasion to go to Malewada. He also testified that after the death of their mother, his brother Shankar had applied for mutation of the fields in their names in terms of the will. Confronted in the cross-examination as to whether he received any notice from the Patwari to appear before the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986, he stated that it was not true. In cross-examination he has admitted that the filed mentioned in the will has been partitioned since February 1986 and since that date he was in possession of the share which was allotted to him in the partition. If the evidence of P.W. 1 Madhukar Ingole, P.W. 11 Shankar Ingole, P.W. 9 Bhaiya Ingole ad P.W. 7 Dayaram Ingole is seen in the light of the revenue records and documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the testimoney of P.W. 1 Madhukar, P.W. 11 Shankar, P.W. 9 Bhaiya and P.W. 7 Dayaram inspires confidence. The copy of extract of the mutation register (Exh. 67) shows that the mutation has been effected in the mutation register on 2-1-1986 itself. The said mutation was made on 2-1-1986 and it is recorded that the concerned persons were intimated on 2-1-1986. It is further apparent from the said document that the mutation, which was effected in the names of Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11), Dayaram Ingole (P.W. 7) and Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) was certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986. Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11) as well his brothers Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) and Dayaram (P.W. 7) are shown to be present at the time of vertification and certification by the Revenue Inspector. It is recorded in the said register that the persons named Bhaiya (P.W. 9), Dayaram (P.W. 7) and Shankar (P.W. 11) were present and on verification of the will deed, they admitted that Bhagirathibai has died. On that the mutation which was effected on 2-1-1986 by the accused was certified on 31-1-1986. When the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 by the accused-appellant and it was duly certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986 in the presence of Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11), Dayaram (P.W. 7) and Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9), it becomes unbelievable and in any case highly doubtful that the accused demanded the sum of Rs. 200/- in the month of May 1986. It will be further seen from the statement of P.W. 7 Dayaram Ingole that the agricultural field was partitioned amongst the brothers, namely, Dayaram (P.W. 7), Bhaiya (P.W. 9) and Shankar (P.W. 11) in the month of February 1986. It is thus clear that after the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 and duly certified on 31-1-1986, the partition of agricultural land took place between the three brothers and thus it can be inferred that Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11), Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) and Dayaram Ingole (P.W. 7) had knowledge that the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 and was duly certified on 31-1-1986 by the Revenue Inspector. The statements of these three brothers, namely, P.W. 7 Dayaram, P.W. Bhaiya and P.W. 11. Shankar to the contrary that they were not present on 31-1-1986 before the Revenue Inspector cannot be believed. This is further fortified from the fact that on 5-5-1986 one of the brothers Bhaiya (P.W. 9) has sold his share of agricultural land to Ishwar Raut by the registered sale-deed (EXh. 98). If the mutation had not been effected on 2-1-1986 and certified on 31-1-1986 and was not in the knowledge of these three brothers as alleged, Bhaiya could not have sold his share on 5-5-1986 much before the date of incident on 16-5-1986. From this evidence, it can be inferred that the prosecution case that Rupees 200/- was demanded by the accused-appellant from Madhukar Ingole (P.W. 1) as gratification as a motive or reward for effecting the entries in the mutation register in favour of Shankar and his brothers does not inspire confidence and cannot be believed. On the face of the facts that the mutation was already effected by the accused-appellant on 2-1-1986, which was certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986 and the post conduct of Shankar Ingole and his brothers of partition of their respective shares in the month of February 1986 and the sale of share by one of the brothers Bhaiya (P.W. 9), the prosecution story about the demand of Rs. 200/- by the accused-appellant from Madhukar Ingole (P.W. 1) as gratification as a motive or reward for effecting entries in the mutation register in favour of Shankar and his brothers becomes highly improbable and can be said to be suffering from inherent improbabilities. There is no reason to doubt correctness and genuineness of the entries recorded in the mutation register on 2-1-1986 and 31-1986 respectively. I find myself unable to agree with the reasoning of the trial Court that the absence of Shankar and his brothers on 31-1-1986 in the said document is proved by the testimony of Shankar and his brothers before the Court and Ex. 52, 55 and 56 that they were not available on 31-1-1986. It may be also observed that in the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has stated that on 31-12-1986 Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11) had given him the will and he told him that on the basis of the will mutation can be done and asked them to deposit the land revenue of the current year and on 1-1-1986 Shankar paid the land revenue and the receipts were given. The fact of deposit of land revenue by Shankar on 1-1-1986 not disputed. This leads to the credence to the defence that on 2-1-1986 the mutation was effected by the accused appellant in the knowledge of Shankar and his brothers and that was certified and approved by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986. There is no independent evidence about the demand of bribe by the the accused-appellant from P.W. 1 Madhukar and P.W. 11 Shankar. In this view of the matter even after drawing the presumption under section 20 of the new P.C. Act (Section 4 of the old P.C. Act) in favour of the prosecution for the offence under section 7 of the new P.C. Act (equivalent to section 161 of the I.P.C), the evidence referred to hereinabove sufficiently dislodges and displaces the said presumption. Taking the entire facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that one of the essential ingredients of Section 7 of the new P.C. Act (equivalent to Section 161 of the I.P.C.) that Rs. 200/- was received by the accused-appellant from Madhukar Ingole (P.W. 1) as gratification as a motive or reward for effecting entries in the mutation register in favour of Shankar and his brothers, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption drawn in favour of the prosecution has been rebutted, dislodged and displaced by the accused-appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the new P.C. Act (equivalent to Section 161 of the I.P.C. as it then was) cannot to be sustained. From the evidence which has been discussed above, it could also be not reasonably held that the accused-appellant has obtained the money of Rs. 200/- from Madhukar Ingole by using some corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position as a public servant and the charge against the accused appellant that he by corrupt or illegal means on 16-5-1986 at 16.45 hours demanded and accepted Rs. 200/- as Patwari from Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole by abusing his position as public servant and obtained for himself a pecuniary advantage of Rs. 200/- cannot be sustained. The offence under section 13(c)(d) read w ith Section 13(2) of the new P.C. Act corresponding to old Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) is also not proved and the conviction of the accused under the said section also cannot be sustained.