Pawan Nimba Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Special (ACB) Case No. 22 of 2015 dated 3.2.2017, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”) and sentencing him to suffer S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for four months. He was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 13(1) (d) r.w. 13(2) of the PC Act.

The facts of the case are that the appellant was serving in the Agricultural department, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, as a District Agricultural Development Officer. The complainant Ravindra Patil was running a fertilizer company i.e Varun Agro Industries at village Umbarkhed, Ta. Chalisgaon, district Jalgaon. He was holding a valid licence for producing secondary micro nutrients mixed fertilizers. Accordingly, he made correspondence with the Agriculture Commissioner, Pune and they demanded a spot inspection report from the place of production. Prior to lodging of the complaint to the A.C.B., he went to the appellant to meet him in Zilla Parishad office. The appellant was avoiding to sign the spot inspection report. He was saying that he was newly appointed and did not knowing or understanding anything and therefore, he had to ask his superiors prior to signing the report.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.8.2014, the complainant went to meet the appellant. At that time, the appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- for signing the spot inspection report. He called the complainant with that amount on 1.9.2014. The complainant was not willing to pay that amount to the appellant. He went to the office of the ACB and lodged a complaint. The panchas were called by sending a letter to the Executive Engineer, Waghur Dam Division, Jalgaon. Accordingly, two panchas came to the office of the complainant. All formalities were told to them. Then P.W.4 P.I. Pawar directed them to conduct bribe demand verification. Accordingly, both of them went to the office of the complainant and panch Sopan Sonwane P.W.2 went to the office of the accused. He demanded the bribe amount. He stated that he required Rs.50,000/-for signing that report. After discussion, the complainant stated that he would pay Rs.10,000/-. The said fact was recorded in the voice recorder. Thereafter, accused signed the inspection report at Exh.19. Thereafter, a trap was arranged and in the presence of panchas, the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was accepted by the appellant and immediately when he noticed of effecting the ACB raid, he threw the amount out of the window. The said amount was seized. The appellant was caught hold of and arrested. The panchanama was drawn. The verification was completed, seizure panchanama etc. were also drawn and appellant was prosecuted by filing charge sheet.

The charge was framed against the appellant. Four witnesses were examined. P.W.1 – complainant Ravindra Bhimsing Patil, P.W.2 - panch witness Sopan Pralhad Sonwane, P.W.3 -sanctioning authority Sudhir Kumar Goyal and P.W.4 - investigating officer Jagdish Madhukar Pawar.

The defence of the appellant was that of total denial and false implication. The learned trial court held that the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses are reliable to the extent of the demand of bribe amount and only acceptance is not proved. A valid sanction for prosecution is proved. Thus, the appellant was sentenced for the offence under section 7 of the PC Act.

Learned advocate for the appellant pointed out the grounds of objections raised in the appeal and also the contradictions, inconsistencies and admissions in the evidence of witnesses, particularly P.W.1 and P.W.2. He submitted that the spot inspection report Exh.19 was signed by the appellant and therefore, the apprehension in the complaint of the complainant P.W.1 stated that the accused would not sign the report becomes doubtful. It is submitted that the appellant has admitted that he had signed the bribe demand panchanama, bribe demand verification panchanama and trap panchanama when his statement was recorded. P.W.1 the complainant has also admitted in his cross examination that from the evidence of the complainant and the bribe verification panchanama Exh.29 and his admission that at the time of the alleged demand of bribe, the appellant signed the said report Exh.19 goes to the root of the matter as to whether there was any demand on the part of the appellant. Further, the testimony of P.W.2 is unbelievable that he and another panch were kept in the ACB office for five days prior to lodging of the complaint, which shows that the trap by the ACB was reasonably doubtful. In para 49 of his evidence, he has admitted that at the time of verification of the demand of bribe, he was outside and only the de facto complainant was present there, and hence, in his presence, the appellant did not demand the bribe amount to the de facto complainant.

Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that to believe the prosecution case there is no reliable evidence of the alleged demand. He submitted to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order and acquit the appellant.

Learned A.P.P. for the respondent State submitted that the evidence of demand is thoroughly discussed by the trial court in the impugned judgment and it has been held that the demand of bribe is proved. The sanction to prosecute the appellant is also proved. The evidence of the complainant and P.W.2 is found to be reliable. There is no any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment to set it aside. It is lastly prayed to dismiss the appeal.

The following point emerged for consideration.

Was the trial court illegal and incorrect in convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

Perused the record and proceedings, particularly the report, the spot inspection report Exh.19, the demand verification panchanama Exh.28, and the oral evidence of the complainant P.W.1 and panch witness P.W.2.

On perusal of the oral evidence of the P.W.1 the complainant and P.W.2, it appears that P.W.2 has admitted that he was outside the room while the demand of bribe amount as alleged by the complainant, was made. This admission goes to the root of the matter. Further, it is the case of the complainant that the appellant was not signing the report unless the bribe amount was paid. However, in his cross examination, he admitted that the report Exh.19 was signed by him and handed over to the complainant and thereafter the trap was arranged. If the admission of the complainant and P.W.2 are considered together, then they creates reasonable doubt as to the demand of the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- on the part of the appellant for signing the report Exh.19. The prosecution case is therefore, becomes reasonably doubtful. Not only this, the case of P.W.2 that for five days he and another panch were in the office of the A.C.B. prior to lodging of the report, shows that it was reasonably doubtful conduct. This testimony of panch P.W.2 does not corroborate the complainant’s case. However, the learned trial court without considering all these material factual aspects, came to the erroneous conclusion that the demand of the bribe amount on the part of the appellant was undoubtedly proved. Therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the remaining evidence, as reasonable doubts discussed above, go to the root of the matter which are proved on the part of defence. The presumption of innocence is not rebutted by the prosecution by leading cogent and admissible evidence. If all these aspects are considered together, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove its case under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The reasons and findings of the trial court are not legal and correct. The impugned judgment and order therefore, deserves to be set aside. The appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Hence, the following order:-

I. The criminal appeal is allowed.

II. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 03.02.2017, recorded in Special (ACB) Case No. 22 of 2015, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to suffer S.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- i/d to suffer S.I. for four months, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charges.

III. Bail bonds and surety are discharged from liability.

IV. Fine amount of Rs.20,000/- be refunded to the appellant after the appeal period is over.