Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. He states that complainant PW-1 Keshav s/o Amrut had sought advance from his Provident Fund amount for performing marriage of his daughter. The amount is payable as advance and therefore before marriage. Admittedly as per this witness, marriage of his daughter was already performed on scheduled date in May 1996 only. However, thereafter, he incorrectly and falsely represented that the marriage of his daughter was postponed initially to 27th August, 1996, and thereafter pointed out that it was postponed to 10th October, 1996. This inconsistent and false conduct on part of complaint, itself is sufficient to infer an attempt to victimize the officers of Coal Mines Provident Fund Establishment (hereinafter be referred to as 'CMPF' for the sake of brevity). By relying upon Exhibit No. 12, he submits that the said documents dated 11.10.1996 filed as complaint to Central Bureau of Investigation fact of moving application on 2 nd May, 1996, has been pointed out and he has disclosed that Assistant Clerk in the CMPF Office demanded Rs. 2,000/- from him as bribe for sanctioning loan of Rs. 40,000/-. He submits that the details of accused demanding the amount are not appearing therein.

Judgment 6 Cri.apeal609.2015.odt Evidence of PW-6 Ashok Pohankar shows that he was dealing with marriage advance cases and charge was not given to accused at all.

15. In the light of this evidence on record, learned counsel states that work of recording of Panchanama (Part-2) (Exh. 24) which begins at 12:30 continued up to 15:00 hours and this Panchanama does not mention that raiding party moved from residence to office. Recovery memo Exh. 25 shows recovery of 8 notes and its recording commenced at 12:30 hours. Learned counsel submits that this recovery memo therefore is part of Panchanama (Part-2) and Panchanama (Part-2) is over in the office of Coal Mines Provident Fund, recovery memo at Exh. 25, therefore, is also recorded in CMPF only and not at the residence of accused. He has drawn attention to cross-examination of PW-4 Birader Sinha to show that documents were seized from table of accused by CBI at about 12:30 hours and at that time CBI Inspector, witness PW-4 and Regional Commissioner Shri Verma were present. Other Officers were also present but no outsiders was present. Thus, PW-2 who was working as Assistant Manager in Indian Overseas Bank or Shri Pendhari were therefore not present when second Panchanama was recorded. Learned counsel states that despite this, the signature of both Panch witnesses namely PW-2 Devrao Maudekar, and one Shri G.J. Pendhari appear on Panchanama (Part-2) as also on recovery memo Exh. 25. He therefore claims that documents at Exh. 24 & 25 needs to be discarded as they do not inspire confidence at all.

20. She further submits that documents seized on record are duly exhibited as Exh. 17 to 20 and Exh. 44 to 49. There is no challenge to these documents. The contention that marriage had taken place in May 1996 itself has got no bearing on the controversy. Whether advance claimed was legal or otherwise cannot be examined in this jurisdiction. The amount was prayed for by moving application on 2 nd May, 1996, is not in dispute and the fact that amount was not paid till the date of raid is also not in dispute. The complaint has in the meanwhile moved applications pointing out postponement of date of marriage initially to 27.08.1996 and thereafter to 10.10.1996. This postponement again is therefore not relevant. She relies upon evidence of PW-7 Rajesh Visnoi to show that this witness has contacted office of CMPF in the month of November and December 1996 and then seized certain note-sheets vide Exh. 35. She further points out that Exh. 47 - claim register and Exh. 48 - Pay Order register clearly show that appellant/accused was associated with loan case of complainant. He cannot therefore take advantage of the fact that seizure memo has not been exhibited. She points out that fact of seizure is brought on record sufficiently in evidence of PW-4- Birader Sinha. However, on technical ground that Birader Sinha has not signed the document Trial Court held that he could not have proved the contents of seizure memo. She submits that contents that seizure memo became irrelevant movement the above registers and note- sheets are exhibited during the course of evidence. According to her, note- sheets show delaying tactics and the documents demonstrate that though pay order/cheque was ready, it was not made over to complaint deliberately & he Judgment 9 Cri.apeal609.2015.odt got that cheque two to three days after the trap.

37. This necessitates, reference to first document i.e. complaint made by complainant Keshav to CBI vide Exh. 12. This complaint is dated 11.10.1996. Therein he has mentioned previous history and then, he has also mentioned that on number of occasions, he contacted Shri Ravindra Thakre the Assistant Clerk in CMPF Office. He has also stated that Shri Thakre demanded bribe of Rs. 2,000/- and ultimately Shri Thakre declared that he would not accept anything less than Rs. 800/-. He has also declared that he Judgment 16 Cri.apeal609.2015.odt was called in CMPF Office at 11:00 a.m. with bribe amount. This complaint is signed by complainant and also by two witnesses. The steps to arrange for trap were initiated thereafter. FIR at Exh. 40 mentions of date and time of report as 9:40 a.m. Thus it only shows that this intimation was received by the Special Police Establishment at Nagpur at 9:40 a.m. in the morning. PW- 5 Kanhaiya Sinha Inspector with CBI has stated that after receiving a complaint, he registered crime and called Panch witnesses.