CRIMINAL APPEAL 4/1995 on 3 October 1988

-ORAL JUDGMENT:

1This appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case No. 4/1995 dated 03/10/1988 acquitting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2It is the prosecution case that the respondent demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.100/- from the complainant in presence of an independent panch. The prosecution examined in all four witnesses, out of which witnesses No.1 and 2 are more important. Witness No.2 is the complainant. He stated that he had taken treatment at Ayurvedic hospital, Osmanabad for about 2 – 3 years and in January, 1994 he decided to take treatment for his ailment elsewhere. He said, on 31/01/1994 he met the R.M.O. of the hospital and requested him to hand over him the case papers of earlier treatment. He said, the R.M.O. directed him to approach the respondent for the papers. He said, he then requested the respondent to give him the papers as well as a reference letter so as to show it to the other hospital. He said, the respondent demanded Rs.250/- as bribe for giving the papers. He said, he agreed to pay the amount and on 06/02/1994 he again went to the respondent and told her that he was unable to pay Rs.250/- to her. To this he said, the respondent allowed him to pay the amount in installments. He said, on 16/02/1994 he again went to the respondent and gave her Rs.150/- and agreed to pay Rs.100/- on the next occasion when the papers would be given to him. He said, on 21/03/1994 he again went to the respondent and asked her about his papers. He said, to this, the respondent asked him to bring the amount of Rs.100/- and then collect the papers. He said, on 22/03/1994 he went to the A.C.B. office and lodged a report. Accordingly, a trap was arranged on that day. He said, according to the trap arrangement, he and shadow panch one Khichade went to see the respondent. He said, the respondent saw him and asked as to whether he had brought the amount. He said, he demanded papers from her and the respondent brought the papers and handed over them to him. He said thereafter, the respondent demanded the amount and then he took out tainted currency notes from his pocket and held them in front of the respondent. He said, thereafter the respondent accepted the tainted currency notes. Thereafter, the usual procedure was followed and the respondent was caught red-handed. The prosecution witness No.1 is the shadow panch who did not support the prosecution case at material aspects. The shadow panch stated that as per the trap arrangement, he accompanied the complainant to the Ayurvedic hospital, Osmanabad on 22/03/1994 at

about 1.00 p.m.. He said, they went in the female ward where they met the respondent. He said, on seeing the complainant, the respondent came to them. He said, the complainant then asked the respondent as to whether she had brought the documents. He said, to this the respondent asked the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount along with the application. He said, the respondent also asked the complainant as to how much amount he had brought. He said, the complainant then replied to the respondent that he had brought Rs.100/-. He said, the complainant then handed over Rs.100/- the tainted currency notes to the respondent. He said, the respondent accepted the amount in her hand. In the cross examination, this witness tried to suggest that what he stated earlier in the examination in chief that the respondent had asked the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount was incorrect. He admitted that the respondent did not ask such question to the complainant but apart from this admission in the cross examination, I think this witness had failed the prosecution by not stating that the respondent demanded the amount of bribe, when she heard the complainant saying that he had brought Rs.100/- with him. He simply stated that the complainant volunteered to hand over the tainted currency notes to the respondent which she accepted. The case of demand is thus not corroborated by this prosecution witness. 3In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in case Pannalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 1191 corroboration in a case like this in all material particulars of the prosecution case is necessary and if it is lacking, the accused could entitle to the benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court in that judgment observed as under.

“There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165-A of the I.P.C. making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon”.

In view of this, the prosecution has not proved the case of demand and acceptance of the bribe, by respondent. On this count, the respondent deserved acquittal.

4The learned judge of the trial Court however acquitted the respondent only because he found the order of sanction passed by the witness No. 4 defective. The prosecution witness No.4 in her deposition stated that he was working as the Director of Ayurvedic Hospital, Osmanabad in the year 1995. She said, the Director is appointing as well as removing authority of a staff Nurse. She said, she received case papers of this case. She said, she perused the papers and found it a fit case to accord sanction for prosecuting the respondent. She said, she issued the sanction order on 6[th ]September, 1995. In the cross examination, she admitted that in the order, the word Osmanabad was erased and replaced with word Bombay and she further admitted that she would not explain as to why this was done. She was suggested that she did not apply her mind, while passing the order. The learned judge of the trial court accepted the defence and held that this witness did not apply her mind while passing the order of sanction and in fact used the proforma sanction, prepared by A.C.B..

5On going through the sanction order Ex. 34, I agree with the learned judge of the trial Court that this typed paper was in fact sent by the A.C.B. to her office. The witness used the proforma itself.

The learned judge thus was right when he concluded that such user of proforma was a indication that the witness hurriedly signed on the dotted line and added words “Bombay” and “date”, on the proforma. I do not find any error in this finding. The appeal should therefore, fail.

ORDER

The appeal stands dismissed.

(A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)

ts k/criapl84.99/23/12/10/ok