Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. PW No. 1, Virendra Nerurkar is the complainant. He is Advocate by profession. He deposed that the flat in which he was residing, was in the name of his parents. His father expired in 1995. The electricity meter was in the name of his father. He had Ganesh Lokhande 7 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc approached Sub-Division of MSEB to enquire about change of electricity meter in the name of his mother. Accused was looking after the said work. Complainant approached him. Accused gave four forms to complainant by putting stamp on one of the form. He was asked to type form number W on stamp paper. The complainant complied the requirements and approached the accused on 1 st December, 1997. Accused visited the flat of the complainant to verify the number of electricity points. It was three bedroom flat. The accused told the complainant to visit office to understand the expenditure. Complainant was told that the number of points are more. The expenditure would be Rs. 1,500/-. Complainant enquired as to why such huge amount is required towards expenditure towards expenditure for change of name. Accused asked him, how much amount he can pay. The complainant stated that, he would pay as per Rule. The accused told him that he would give firm quotation of Rs. 450/- and the same be deposited in the office at Rasthapeth, and while returning he should bring Rs. 1,000/- by the accused for him. Complainant deposited Rs. 450/- on 10th December, 1997 in the office of Rasthapeth. He realised that the electricity meter would not be changed in the name of mother, unless he pays the amount. Hence, he lodged the complaint to ACB, Pune. Complaint was recorded. Pancha witnesses were called. 10 notes of Ganesh Lokhande 8 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc Rs. 100/- were provided for the purpose of raid. Procedural requirements with regards to raid including applying anthracene powder etc., were completed. The notes were kept in left side shirt pocket of the complainant. Instructions were given to the complainant and pancha by Inspector Ahir. Pancha was told to accompany the complainant while going to office and observe conversation between them. Pre-trap panchanama was prepared. The trap party proceeded to the office of accused. Complainant and pancha Jagtap went to office of accused. Complainant gave form of firm quotation and showed the receipt. Accused told him to come out, and took him towards toilet, and enquired with him whether he has brought the amount. The complainant enquired quantum of amount. Accused told him Rs. 1,000/-. Accused enquired with the complainant about Jagtap. He told him that he is his client. Complainant took out notes from shirt pocket by right hand and offered it to accused. The amount was accepted and kept it in left side pant pocket. Accused gave signal to raiding party. Accused was apprehended. Accused was taken inside the office. Complainant was asked to wait outside. Thereafter, the complainant was called inside the office. Enquiry was made about the incident. Panchanama was recorded. His statement was recorded on 8 th January, 1998. The currency notes were identified by him. In cross-examination, he Ganesh Lokhande 9 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc stated that there was a mark of rubber stamp below exhibit 7 on the reverse side, and below that there is writing in the handwriting including the date. It was in the handwriting of accused. Forms were submitted after compliance to MSEB on 9 th December, 1997. At the foot of exhibit 17, there is date 24th November, 1997. Accused visited his house before he submitted forms to MSEB. Complainant was having two meters in his house. The total consumption of his house was divided in two meters. One was for power line and another for regular. The date on which the complainant visited office or the accused visited his house, and the complainant submitted forms, are not noted anywhere. When he visited MSEB office at Rastapeth for depositing Rs. 450/- he had not decided to approach ACB. He visited ACB office at 11.30 a.m.. He was not instructed by ACB that he should visit the accused and enquire when the meter will be changed in the name of his mother, and that he should submit the receipt of Rs. 450/- to the accused. He did not submit receipt of Rs. 450/- and some forms to ACB office while lodging complaint. The receipt is shown to ACB officer. He did not enter the cabin of Ovhal (accused). He was talking with accused from window of cabin. The conversion between him and the accused was going on through the window for two minutes. Two electricity meters are still working in his house.

Ganesh Lokhande 13 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc

5. PW-3, Satish Ahir was serving as Inspector with ACB. He deposed that PW-1 had visited office for lodging complaint. The complaint was recorded. Pancha witnesses were called. Bribe amount was arranged. Anthracene powder was applied. Instructions were given to complainant and pancha witness. Anthracene powder was applied. Instructions were given to PW- 2 to accompany the complainant. PW-3 and others started for trap. They went by rickshaw. Complainant and PW-2 walked to MSEB office. Complainant came out of the office and signaled as instructed. PW-2 and other raiding party members rushed to office. Complainant was asked to wait outside. PW-2 pointed out towards the person sitting on the chair, and stated that he has accepted the amount. Accused was apprehended. Request was made for room to complete the proceeding. Hands of the accused were checked under ultra-violet lamp and shining was seen on finger of left hand and thumb, and two fingers of right hand. Shining was also seen on the left side of pant pocket of the accused. Notes were taken out by pancha no. 2 from the pant pocket of accused. Notes were checked under ultra- violet lamp, and the same were shining. Complainant was called inside. He narrated the incident. Articles were seized. Accused was arrested. Sanction was obtained and charge-sheet was filed. In the cross-examination, he stated that there are instructions in the Ganesh Lokhande 14 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc manual to verify the demand independently by concerned office before laying a trap. It should be seen whether the person demanding the bribe, is having an authority to do the work of complainant before laying a trap. The building of MSEB office is adjacent to road. After entering MSEB office, there are two cabins on right side. The first cabin is of operator and another is of accused. Accused denied that he has accepted the amount. It is provided in the manual that photographs of the hands, having anthracene powder, can be taken in ultra-violet lamp. Separate statements of panchas are not recorded. Sanction proposal is sent through S.P.. Investigating Officer used to prepare report about the case and sent it to sanctioning authority through superiors. Report is prepared to show that the material is available against the accused. Proforma of sanction order is also sent to sanctioning authority along with report. Proforma is in general and not for any specific case. Copy of proforma is kept with I.O. Proforma is in his office.

11. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is implicit that the complainant's father has expired in 1995. The electricity meter which was in the name of his father, was to be transferred in the name of his mother. Complainant (PW-1) approached the Sub- Division of MSEB to make enquiry about changing the electricity meter in the name of his mother. He was directed to the accused. Complainant met him on the next day. He was given forms. On the backside of electric supply form, rubber stamp was put by accused. Accused added some documents by writing and the complainant was asked to type Form W on stamp paper of Rs. 20 and obtain signature of mother, and come alongwith the documents. Perusing evidence of PW-1, it appears that till then there was no demand of bribe by the accused. Complainant approached accused on 1 st December, 1997, Ganesh Lokhande 22 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc and handed over those papers to him. There was no demand of bribe. Accused told the complainant that on 3 rd December, 1997, he has to visit his house to check points and wiring. The flat of complainant was having three bedrooms. Accused informed complainant that there are more points in the flat and there would be more expenses which are required to be calculated. Complainant was asked to come to office after 7 to 8 days so that he can be informed about the expenditure. There was no demand of bribe. He was not called on specific day. Complainant alleges that he went to office of accused on 9th December, 1997, and met him. Accused told him that there are more points and expenditure will be to the extent of Rs. 1,500/-. On questioning about the quantum of expenditure, the accused asked the complainant how much amount he can pay. Complainant told him that he would pay as per rule. Accused told him to pay firm quotation of Rs. 450/- in the office at Rasthapeth. Accused also told him that while returning he should bring Rs. 1,000/- for him, as he is doing entire work. It is difficult to believe that accused had accomplished completion of work of complainant, before acceptance of alleged bribe amount. Complainant has not mentioned the date on which he initially met the accused. He has referred to the subsequent date of his meeting accused i.e. 1 st December, 1997 and 9th December, 1997. Complainant deposited the Ganesh Lokhande 23 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc amount of Rs. 450/- in Rasthapeth office. He presumed that unless amount of Rs. 1,000/- paid to Shri Ovhal (accused) as bribe, the meter will not be changed from the name of his father to name of his mother. Hence, he lodged the complaint with ACB on 10 th December, 1997. The complainant being Advocate was definitely aware that depositing amount of Rs. 450/- vide firm quotation amounts to completion of his work relating to transfer of electric meter in name of his mother. He should be aware who is the authority to grant sanction for transfer of electric meter. It is pertinent to note that substantial work relating to transfer of meter was completed. Accused had handed over all the requisite forms to the complainant and directed him to deposit Rs. 450. It is also evident that alleged demand had cropped up only after the accused had allegedly visited the house of the complainant, and told him that there are more electrical points and expenditure would be more. Complainant did not disclose that he has two electricity meters. His request was to transfer the electricity meter from the name of his father to the name of his mother. Trap was arranged on 10 th December, 1997. After depositing the amount of Rs. 450 with Rasthapeth office, he did not visit the office of MSEB and did not approach the accused to submit the documents. According to complainant, he was accompanied by pancha witness Ganesh Jagtap(PW-2). They met the accused, the Ganesh Lokhande 24 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc complainant gave form of firm quotation and showed the receipt. Accused told him to come out and lead them towards toilet on the northern side of his cabin and enquired about the amount. Complainant asked him about how much amount and the accused quoted Rs. 1,000/-. Accused refused to reduce the amount. On enquiry the complainant told the accused that the person accompanying is his client. He had stated that the accused had told him on the previous occasion to deposit the amount in Rasthapeth office and approach him with Rs. 1,000/-. Inspite of that complainant had asked the accused, the quantum of amount. It is admitted that on the reverse side of exhibit 07, there is mark of rubber stamp and writing executed by the accused with the date. According to complainant, the forms were submitted after compliance to MSEB on 9th December, 1997. In his examination-in- chief, the complainant had stated that after depositing the amount of Rs. 450/- in Rasthapeth office, he had approached the office of ACB and lodged the complaint, apprehending that the accused would demand of Rs.1,000/- towards bribe. However, from the cross- examination it is disclosed that he had submitted forms after compliance to MSEB on 9th December, 1997. He had not mentioned the date of submission in the form. However, at the foot of exhibit 7 on the front page, there is date 24 th November, 1997. It is apparent Ganesh Lokhande 25 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc that the complainant is suppressing vital facts for reasons best known to him. From the date reflected on the form, it appears that the complainant had earlier visited the office of MSEB. He also stated that he came to know about slab wise charges after his visit to MSEB office for enquiry. He was having two meters in the house. Total consumption of house was divided on two meters, as one was for power line and another for regular. Prior to 1997, the differentiation of power meter and ordinary meter was dis-continued. The fact that there were two electricity meters in his house, were suppressed by him, when he had approached the accused for transfer of electricity meter. The suggestion was given to him, in the cross-examination that when he visited the accused for enquiry, after perusing the bill, accused told him that there are two meters in the house and one should be discontinued as per MSEB rule. The suggestion was denied by him. Another suggestion put to the complainant is that the accused told him that after depositing Rs. 450/-. One meter will be discontinued, and the other will be transferred in the name of his mother. He also denied this suggestion. Complainant admitted that the date on which he visited office of MSEB, the date on which the accused visited his house and the date on which he submitted forms, are not noted anywhere. When the forms were given to the complainant, on the same day he was told by accused that Form W Ganesh Lokhande 26 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc should be on stamp paper of Rs.20. When he visited MSEB office of Rasthapeth for depositing Rs.450/-, he had not decided to approach Anti Corruption Bureau. He visited ACB office at 11.30 a.m.. He took decision to approach ACB office after depositing Rs. 450/-. He was not instructed by ACB office to visit accused and enquire whether the meter will be changed in the name of his mother. He was not instructed by ACB office that he should submit receipt of Rs.450/- to the accused. He did not submit the receipt of Rs.450/- and forms to ACB office while lodging complaint. According to him the same were shown to ACB officer. It is relevant to note that the complainant had presumed that the electricity meter will not be transferred unless bribe amount is paid to the accused, and hence he lodged the complaint. It was his second thought to lodge the complaint. There was reason for ACB to verify the demand made by the accused. Without verification trap was arranged. Complainant had suppressed the vital documents from ACB. Complainant did not enter the cabin of Ovhal (accused), he spoke through window of cabin. The conversation was going on through the window for minute or two. According to complainant, he walked about 15 spaces from the cabin with accused and pancha. They were at the spot for minute or two. These facts would show that the conversation was through the window for about two minutes. It is difficult to believe that PW-2 Ganesh Lokhande 27 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc had heard the conversation between accused and the complainant and that the process of demand and acceptance was completed within span of two minutes.

Ganesh Lokhande 30 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc

13. PW-3 is the investigating officer, he referred to the complaint of PW-1 and arrangement made for conducting raid. He also deposed about recording pre-trap-panchanama and post-trap- panchanama. He was member of raiding party. Complainant and PW-2 went to office of MSEB. According to him they went to the office of MSEB at 1.05 p.m., complainant came out of the office and transmitted signal as instructed. The raiding party alongwith pancha No. 2, rushed to the office. PW-2 had stated that after acceptance of amount by accused, the raiding party had apprehended him at 3.00 p.m. Thus there is contradiction with regards to time of arrival of raiding party, after the acceptance of amount. In his cross- examination, he stated that PW-1 was at the office of ACB on 10th December, 1997 at 10.30 a.m.. He has not noted the timing. There are instructions in the manual to verify the demand independently by the concerned office before trap. It should be seen whether the person demanding bribe is having authority to do the work of the complainant before laying a trap. Written requisition was sent for calling pancha at 11.00 to 11.15 a.m.. Complaint was reduced into writing. He admitted that the manual provides taking photographs of the notes having anthracene powder introduced for ultra-violate lamp. Separate statements of pancha are not recorded. Sanction proposal was sent to S.P. The investigating officer prepare a Ganesh Lokhande 31 of 43 Cr. Appeal No. 880 of 2004.doc report about case and sent it to sanctioning authority through superiors. He further stated that the report is prepared to show that material is available against the accused. Proforma of sanction order is also sent to sanctioning authority alongwith report. Proforma in general and not for specific case. Copy of proforma is kept with investigating officer, which is in his office and that can be produced in Court. From the version of this witness, it is revealed that the instructions provided in the manual were not implemented. Verification of demand was not done. There was no reason to proceed with the raid without verification of the demand. Alongwith the report of the case, sanction proposal is forwarded and the proforma of sanction order is forwarded alongwith report.