Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Avinash Sitaram Garware vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 November, 2007
17 One more fact, that is required to be considered from the
testimony of PW 1 Shaikh Yusuf that in the presence of the officer of the Anti
Corruption Bureau as well as panchas no verification was conducted. It is not
the case of the prosecution that after the complaint Exh.32 was filed the
complainant was asked in presence of the Investigating Officer as well as
both the panchas to make a call to the accused or to send the complainant
along with panch to verify the truthness in the allegations in Exh.32.
Reliance can be placed on the decision of this Court in Avinash Sitaram
Garware vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007(4) Bom. L.R. 2579, wherein it has
been held that, "Once the prior demand is not proved the rest of the
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2020 02:46:46 :::
17 Cri.Appeal_728_2005_Jd_
prosecution case regarding money allegedly demanded by the accused will
have to be read with great caution and circumspection ". The testimony of
PW 2 Pradip Hangargekar, panch No.1 will have to be then considered, as to
whether even immediately after the pre-trap panchnama, when the
complainant met accused, whether there was any demand from the accused
to the complainant regarding bribe. Panch No.1 states that when he went
along with complainant at about 10.55 a.m. in the office of the accused
twice, the accused asked the complainant to wait for five minutes, then the
accused finished of his work and asked the complainant to join for a cup of
tea. Thereafter they all went in a hotel near M.S.E.B. office. According to
him, the accused had purchased one cigarette from Pan Stall near the hotel
and they were standing nearby the said stall. Accused asked complainant, as
to 'whether he has done the work'. Complainant told the accused that he has
done his work. Accused asked him the figure of the amount and then
complainant told the figure as 1000. Then accused asked the complainant to
pay that amount to him. Complainant took out the said amount from the left
side pocket of his shirt and offered it, which accused accepted by his right
hand and kept it in his pocket. Now, if we try to correlate those dialogues
with the testimony of the complainant, then the complainant's testimony of
silent about the exchange of dialogues and it creates doubt. He states that
the accused smoke a cigarette. Complainant paid the amount to the accused.
State Of Maharashtra Tr.C.B.I vs Mahesh G.Jain on 28 May, 2013
When the
second application was made it automatically ought to have been tagged with
the first application and it was not necessary for any fresh endorsement on
the second application. The prosecution has not come with a case that when
the first application was in process, there was any kind of illegal demand by
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2020 02:46:46 :::
21 Cri.Appeal_728_2005_Jd_
the accused from the complainant. Therefore, the sanction, that has been,
accorded by PW 5 at Exh.56 appears to be totally without application of
mind, and therefore, the entire prosecution should fail.
19 Reliance can be placed on the decision in State of Maharashtra
through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC
119, wherein it has been held -
C.S. Krishnamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 29 March, 2005
"The sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts
do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the
particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due
application of mind. But, when the sanction order itself is eloquent
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2020 02:46:46 :::
22 Cri.Appeal_728_2005_Jd_
enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by
the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was
accorded by a competent person with due application of mind. In case
the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning
authority is apparent by reading the order. When the sanction itself is
very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material
was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according
sanction and the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes
unsustainable."
Krishan Chander vs State Of Delhi on 6 January, 2016
23 In such Anti Corruption cases mere demand and acceptance is
not sufficient but some more thing is required. The demand for the bribe is
the Sine qua non to convict the accused in such cases, as it has been held in
Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi, 2016(5) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 578, that the
money should be accepted as 'bribe' or that should be 'illegal gratification'
and not as fees or loan etc. This criteria is not fulfilled in this case. Though
the accused has not led evidence of his said relative, yet, his own immediate
written say is on record. He has given that explanation in his statement
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2020 02:46:46 :::
25 Cri.Appeal_728_2005_Jd_
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also, which is not an
empty formality. We must know the background also while appreciating this
point. When the first application was filed by the complainant and a
favourable remark was already given by the accused, there was no question
of any further remark on the second application as already the first
application was still pending with the superiors and now the alleged
acceptance is accepted by the accused and he is coming with a case that
acceptance of money is as 'loan' then the stand taken by the accused appears
to be probable. The testimony of sanctioning authority does not make it clear
that when alleged demand was made, the practice of issuing caste certificate
of 'Takari' caste was stopped. Who had issued that order of stopping of
issuance of such certificate, when and why such order was passed is not
explained. No written order issued by the appropriate department of the
Government to that effect has been produced. Why there should have been a
back dated certificate? Unless those circumstances would have been brought,
there was no question of demand and acceptance. It can be therefore said
that the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act has been rebutted by
the accused by preponderance of probabilities.