Raghunath vs The State of Maharashtra

A.I.S. Cheema, J.—This Criminal Appeal is by original Accused Raghunath Balasaheb Karale, against Judgment and Order of conviction in Special Case (AC) No.6 of 2008 passed by Special Judge, Osmanabad, convicting the Appellant (hereinafter referred as "Accused") for offence u/s 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Corruption Act"), sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of One Year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to suffer two months further Rigorous Imprisonment on both counts in total.

In brief, the Case Of Prosecution is as under: -

(A). The Accused was an employee of Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, attached to Sub-Division (Works), Bhoom as Sectional Engineer. On 11th April, 2007, complainant Yuvraj Shivaji Yede filed complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police (for short "Dy. S.P.") Anti Corruption, Mohammad Yunus Ismail Shaikh, claiming that work of constructing concrete Nala at Mahaldarpuri was assigned to Ganesh Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Sarola (Washi) and the Chairman of the said Sanstha, namely, Yuvraj Raghunath Jadhav had authorized the complainant to supervise the work being done and to follow up the work regarding bill with the Zilla Parishad. The complainant claimed that towards completion of the work, an amount of Rs. 1,80,295/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Five) was due and Rs.1,34,003/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Three) had been received by cheque. For remaining amount of Rs.46,292/- (Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Two), the complainant contacted the Executive Engineer for clearance of the bill and was told that layout plan and map was not yet obtained from Sectional Engineer for clearance of the bill. The complainant contacted the Sectional Engineer, the Accused, on 11th April, 2007. The Accused made a demand of bribe of Rs.7000/-. The complainant Yuvraj Yede requested and the amount in negotiation was reduced to Rs.2000/-. Complainant promised to pay the money on the next day and the accused asked him to come to his residence at Bhoom with Rs.2000/- and that then he will give the complainant the layout and map.

(B). The complainant had produced with the complaint, copy of work order and authority letter to the Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau (for short "A.C.B."). The complainant informed the Dy. S.P. that he has been asked to pay the amount to the accused on the next day at 9.00 a.m. The Dy. S.P. asked the complainant to come at 6.00 a.m. on the next day i.e. 12th April, 2007. Dy. S.P. Mohammad Yunus sent requisition to the office of M.S.E.D.C.L., Osmanabad requesting for deputing two persons as Panchas. One Hemant Patki and Mukundan Wadpil were deputed. Intimation was given to them in writing to attend the office at 6.00 a.m. of 12th April, 2007.

(C). On 12th April 2007, at 6.00 a.m. when these persons assembled, the Panchas were introduced to the staff and the complainant, and a pre-trap Panchnama was drawn. The complainant had Rs.2200/- with him and from the said amount, Rs.2000/- were set apart for using in the trap. The Panchas and complainant were explained the procedure regarding use of anthracene powder and ultra violet light. The raiding party then proceeded from Osmanabad in Government vehicle to Bhoom and the complainant and Panch Hemant Patki got down some distance away from the house of the Accused, where the Jeep was stopped. They went by foot to the house of the Accused at about 8.45 a.m. The complainant enquired if the Accused was there and asked his wife to tell the Accused that Yuvraj has come. The Accused came and these three persons went in the front room of the house. The complainant and Panch Hemant sat on Sofa and Accused sat in a chair near table. Complainant asked for the layout plan and map and the Accused asked if the amount had been brought. The complainant took out the money of Rs.2000/- from the front pocket of the shirt and held out the money to the Accused who accepted the same and kept the same in drawer of the table asking as to how much it was and complainant informed that it was Rs.2000/-. Accused started preparing layout plan and map on the paper by sitting at the same place. At such time complainant came out of the room and gave pre-decided signal to the other raiding party and Dy. S.P. Mohammad Yunus and others went to the spot in the room. The complainant was asked to wait outside. In the room Panch Hemant Patki was asked and he pointed out towards the Accused, informing that the Accused had asked if the money had been brought and taken the same from the complainant and had kept the same in the drawer of the table. The Dy. S.P. caught both hands of the Accused and asked his particulars. The raiding party offered its own search to the Accused and then the procedure of displaying hands of other raiding party members was carried out under ultra violet light, after making the room dark. There was no shining. Then the hands of the Accused were tested and they had bluish shine on the fingers of the right hand of the Accused. The other Panch was asked to take out the cash from the drawer. The same was counted and there were two currency notes of Rs.500/- and ten currency notes of Rs.100/-, which were matching description in pre-trap Panchnama. The notes were tested and they also had bluish shine. The raiding party carried out further procedure regarding sealing of the notes and seizure of the pen which was being used by the Accused and which also had bluish shine. The complainant was also called in and even his hands had the bluish shine, in ultra violet light. The complainant was searched and the amount of Rs.200/- plus handkerchief and the mobile were found. There was shine on the pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The amount of Rs.200/-, handkerchief and mobile were returned to the complainant. Copy of the layout plan and map prepared by the Accused was also collected. Detail Panchnama of the trap was drawn.

(D). The Dy. S.P. Mohammad Yunus filed F.I.R. at Crime No.102 of 2007 at Bhoom Police Station on the same day and the Accused was arrested. Other steps of informing the Director General of A.C.B., Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Aurangabad and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad were taken. Statements were recorded. Sanction for prosecution was obtained and the charge-sheet was filed.

Defence

Charge against the Accused was framed. He pleaded not guilty. The defence of the Accused in nut-shell is that the complainant had nothing to do with the work concerned and that the complainant was known to the Accused and Accused had given hand - loan of Rs.2000/- to the complainant and at the time of incident, it was such amount of hand - loan which was returned by the complainant, which was received by the Accused and thus the said amount had nothing to do with the official work of the Accused.

In the Trial Court

Before the Trial Court, the prosecution brought on record the evidence of Complainant Yuvraj Yede (PW-1), the Panch Hemant Patki (PW-2) and Dy. S.P. Mohammad Yunus (PW-3). The Trial Court considered the evidence brought by the prosecution as well as the defence raised by the Accused and found that the Accused was a public servant and that in discharge of his duty as Sectional Engineer of Zilla Parishad, had the duty to provide layout plan and map of the construction work of drainage done and to do so, had demanded Rs.7000/- from the complainant and settled to accept Rs.2000/- and did, in fact on 12th April 2007, receive the amount as illegal gratification as a motive for providing layout plan and map of works done. The amount was accepted as motive for supplying layout plan and map and thus the Accused secured pecuniary advantage of Rs.2000/- by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position as public servant. The Trial Court discarded the defence that the amount had been accepted at the house of Accused as refund of hand - loan which was taken by the complainant. With such findings, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused as mentioned above.

Arguments

I have heard learned counsel for both sides. For the Appellant - accused it has been submitted that the complainant was not member or office bearer of Ganesh Majoor Sahakari Sanstha and there was no resolution authorizing him to supervise the work and thus he was not concerned with the said work. Although it is the case of prosecution that initial demand was made by the Accused on 11th April, 2007 the pre-trap Panchnama shows that Panchas had been called on 10th April 2007, which is even before the demand and thus the case of prosecution is doubtful. It has been submitted that complainant claimed to have met the Accused at about 1.30 - 1.45 p.m. at Bhoom and so he could not have reached the office of A.C.B. at Osmanabad around 2.00 p.m. on same day i.e. 11th April 2007, as the places are about 70 k.m.s apart. The requisition letter sent for the Panchas was even before the time when the complainant says that he had gone to the office of A.C.B. The prosecution claimed that there was another trap on 10th April 2007, regarding which the same Panchas had been called, but the same is after thought, to come out of infirmity in the pre-trap Panchnama. The complainant was friend of Accused and was acquainted with the family of Accused and was on visiting terms and had given hand - loan of Rs.2000/-. On 9th April, 2007 Accused had received phone call from Chairman of the Sanstha that he was sending the complainant with file and measurement book and to provide him the layout plan. During that time the Accused had talked with the complainant and asked for return of his money. It has been argued that this fact is not denied by the complainant Yuvraj in his evidence claiming that he does not remember whether he had talked with the Accused at the time of phone. According to the learned counsel, it shows that complainant was not denying as such that he had a talk with the Accused. It has been further argued that at the time of trap itself the Accused had given statement to Dy. S.P. that he had to receive the amount of hand - loan and the amount received was towards that purpose.

Against this, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the complainant was supervising the work on behalf of the Sanstha/society. The complainant had the authority from the said Sanstha/society. The evidence on record is consistent and the typing error in the pre-trap Panchanama regarding date of 10th April, 2007 needs to be ignored. There is evidence that same Panchas had been called on 10th April 2007 also with reference to another trap, which had failed and thus some typing error has taken place. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant and the Panch Hemant Patki had gone to the house of the Accused and that he did receive the amount. The complainant had with him the measurement book, and for layout plan and map he had gone to the Accused. The acquaintance is not such so as to have personal transactions of hand - loan. Defence of loan has not been proved. The evidence is consistent and needs to be accepted.

Having heard the counsel for both sides, Points For My Determination are: -

(1) Whether the Accused being public servant accepted from the complainant for himself gratification of Rs.2000/- as a motive for providing layout plan and map, which he was officially bound to provide in the exercise of his official functions?

(2) Whether it has been proved that the Accused, a public servant committed the offence of criminal misconduct by obtaining for himself, by corrupt or illegal means, pecuniary advantage of Rs.2000/-, abusing his position as public servant while he was holding office as public servant?

My findings for both the points are in affirmative.

REASONS

Concern of PW1-Complainant

In order to prove the offence, the prosecution examined the complainant, PW-1, Yuvraj Yede. His evidence shows that Ganesh Majoor Co - operative Society was constructing the cement concrete Nala in the village and Yuvraj Jadhav was the chairman of the society. These facts are not in dispute. The work was sanctioned through the Zilla Parishad and it was the duty of the Accused to take measurement of the work and to supervise the work. The evidence of PW-1 Yuvraj is that bill of works done, had been submitted to the Zilla Parishad and an amount of Rs.1,34,003/- had already been received and Rs.46,292/- were still due. PW-1 Yuvraj Yede claimed that the Chairman Yuvraj Jadhav had given him authority letter to supervise the work. Although the grant of authority to the complainant has been questioned, the cross-examination of the complainant shows that it was suggested to the complainant and he accepted that he had received the measurement book and xerox copy of bill on 9th April 2007, from Chairman Yuvraj Jadhav and that the same was given to him in order to bring layout plan and map from the Accused. In the cross-examination of complainant, he was asked and he claimed that he cannot state whether there was phone call made by Yuvraj Jadhav to the Accused at that time stating that the papers were being sent to the Accused through complainant. Complainant in cross-examination (Para 9) stated that he does not remember whether he was present at the time of talk on phone and that his name was suggested on phone. Learned counsel for Accused referred to the evidence of complainant PW-1 (Para-9) that he claimed that he does not remember whether he talked with the Accused at that time on phone. Learned counsel submitted that when the complainant claims that he does not remember, it means that he is not specifically denying the talk with the Accused at that time. With regard to these suggestions, the argument is that at that time on phone accused had told the complainant to return his amount of Rs.2000/-. However the complainant denied the suggestion, but what survives is that even the Accused accepts that Chairman Yuvraj Jadhav had deputed the complainant to go and get the layout plan and map from the Accused. Thus, it cannot be said that the complainant had no concern with the works which were being done by the said Sanstha.

The Demand

The evidence of PW-1 Yuvraj Yede is that when he went to the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad on 11th April 2007, he was told that there was no layout plan and map submitted with the bill and that the same would be required for sanctioning the bill. Thus, according to the complainant, he went to Bhoom to the Accused for the layout plan and map. The Accused demanded Rs.7000/-. The complainant deposed that he agreed to pay Rs.2000/- and that he would come on the next day to take the plan and map. Evidence shows that it was decided to meet at the house of the Accused at Bhoom. Complainant has deposed that he then went to the A.C.B. Office at Osmanabad on the same day as he did not want to pay Rs.2000/-. The evidence of complainant as well as PW-3 Dy. S.P. Mohammad Yunus shows that the complainant had gone to the Office of A.C.B. and filed the complaint which is at Exhibit 19, on 11th April 2007. These witnesses deposed that the complainant was then asked to come on the next day morning at 6.00 a.m.. The evidence of these witnesses is that along with complaint Exhibit 19, the complainant had given copy of authority letter which had been issued by the Chairman of the Sanstha, Yuvraj Jadhav, in favour of complainant.

Calling Panchas

Evidence of PW-3 Mohammad Yunus is that he sent requisition for Panchas to M.S.E.D.C.L. Osmanabad as per letter Exhibit 30 and PW-2 Hemant Patki and Mukundan Wadpil had come to his office and he gave them intimation to attend his office at 6.00 a.m. on 12th April 2007. It is corroborated by PW-2 also.

pre-trap Steps

Evidence of PW''s 1 to 3 shows that they had gathered in the office of A.C.B. on 12th April 2007 at 6.00 a.m. and pre-trap Panchnama Exhibit 14 was prepared. The pre-trap Panchnama Exhibit 14 gives specific details as to what preparation was done before carrying out the raid. The pre-trap Panchnama was admitted on behalf of the Accused in the Trial Court vide endorsement below Exhibit 11. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the pre-trap Panchnama which records specific details as to the preparations that were done before carrying out the raid and how the procedure was explained to the Panchas and the complainant with regard to carrying out of the raid/trap. The pre-trap Panchnama gives details of the numbers of the notes which were to be used at the time of trap. The same includes two notes of Rs.500/- and ten notes of Rs.100/-. No doubt, PW-2 in his evidence appears to have mentioned that there were two notes of Rs.500/- and twenty two notes of Rs.50/- with the complainant. However, it does not appear that PW-2 was cross-examined on this count and there is no argument also in this regard. I would thus observe that PW-2 may have been under some confusion at the time of evidence, may be because he was also Panch in another trap case dated 10th April, 2007. It may be stated that as the pre-trap Panchnama is admitted, the confusion of PW-2 on this count regarding the denomination of the notes does not require to be given any undue weightage.

The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 gives details regarding how the pre-trap Panchnama was prepared before the raiding party proceeded to the house of the Accused. As the Panchnama itself is admitted, I need not specifically refer to the details.

The Trap

Evidence of PW''s 1 to 3 shows that the PW-1 and PW-2 got down at some distance from the vehicle, from the house of Accused and PW-1 and PW-2 went to the house of Accused. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is that they reached the house of the Accused at about 8.45 a.m. At that time at the house, there was a woman. Evidence is that the complainant told his name to that woman so that she could inform the Accused. The Accused came out of the house in banyan and towel and opened the front room. PW-2 sat on Sofa and Accused sat in the chair beside the table. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 shows that complainant asked for layout plan and map and accused wanted to know whether the complainant had brought the amount. The complainant said that he had brought the amount and took out Rs.2000/- which had been kept in the front pocket of his shirt, by taking out the same with his right hand and offered the same to the Accused who accepted the same by his right hand and put the amount in the drawer of the table. Evidence is that the Accused asked as to how much is the amount and the complainant said that it was Rs.2000/-. Thereafter Accused started preparing layout plan and map on the papers sitting at the same place.

Evidence of PW''s 1 to 3 then shows that complainant then went out of the room and as per the instructions of the trap, he took out his handkerchief from left pocket of the pant and put the same on his left shoulder. The rest of the raiding party then entered the room concerned. The complainant was asked to wait outside. Evidence of PW-2 Panch Hemant Patki and PW-3 Mohammad Yunus then gives details as to the further proceedings which took place in the room. The evidence is that when the rest of the raiding party entered the room, the Accused was sitting in banyan and towel on the chair. PW-2 Panch Hemant Patki pointed out towards Accused that he was Mr. Karale. The Panch told Dy. S.P. that Accused had asked the complainant whether he had brought money and the accused had accepted the bribe amount by his right hand from the complainant and that the Accused had asked as to what was the amount and asked that whether it was "two" and then kept the amount in the drawer. PW-3 Dy. S.P. Mohammad Yunus has deposed that he caught both the hands of the Accused and asked to stop in the same position. Accused gave his name and that he was Sectional Engineer. The evidence shows that the raiding party offered its search and the Accused denied to take it. The Accused was shown hands of all the members of trap under ultra violet light after making room dark but there was no shining on the hands of these members. When the hands of the Accused were tested in the ultra violet light, it was noticed that there was bluish shine on the fingers of the right hand. When asked about the bribe amount, he told that the same is kept in the drawer. Then the other Panch was asked to take out the cash from the drawer. Other Panch No.2 took out the cash from that drawer and counted that it was two currency notes of Rs.500/- and ten currency notes of Rs.100/-. The description matched with the pre-trap Panchnama. The notes were tested under ultra violet light and they had bluish shine. At such time, similar shine was found on the fingers of Panch No.2 also. The numbers of the currency were noted on the envelope and the same were sealed. The articles were identified in the Court. There was a paper inside the drawer on which the currency notes had earlier been put. Even this paper had anthracene powder on it and the same was also seized. The ball pen by which the Accused was writing, was also seized as it had the shine. Evidence shows that complainant was then called in and his hands were tested under ultra violet light and they also had bluish shine on right hand fingers. The complainant still had Rs.200/- and handkerchief and one mobile, which were separated and regarding which reference was made in pre-trap Panchnama. Copy of the map and layout plan was collected, as per the evidence of PW-3.

The evidence of PW-3 Dy. S.P. Mohammad Yunus further shows that he had got prepared map of scene of offence Exhibit 35. He filed F.I.R. Exhibit 32 giving all the details of the incident. In the cross-examination of PW-3 Mohammad Yunus, the Accused got proved statement which the Accused had given to PW-3 at the time of trap, which is at Exhibit 39. PW-3 admitted that immediate explanation of the Accused was that hand - loan of Rs.2000/- had been refunded by the complainant.

Demand and pre-trap Panchnama

It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the Appellant � Accused that the pre-trap Panchnama dated 12th April 2007 mentions that Panchas had been directed on 10th April 2007 by their office, to attend the office of A.C.B. and that they had accordingly gone to the A.C.B. office and attended and that the Panchnama claims that the complainant had at that time been introduced to them. The argument is that the case of prosecution is that the basic demand itself was made on 11th April 2007 and so there could not have been calling of the Panchas on 10th April 2007 itself. In this regard, if the evidence of PW-2 is perused, in cross-examination (Para-5), the Accused had referred the Panch to these contents and the Panch stated that the date of 10th April 2007, mentioned in pre-trap Panchnama Exhibit 14 was wrong. The Panch PW-2 deposed that they had been engaged in another A.C.B. trap case on 10th April 2007 but that was not successful. When the Panch was asked further in the cross-examination, he deposed that he had been to Tuljapur with the raiding party on 10th April 2007 concerning A.C.B. complaint received against Chief Officer of Tuljapur Municipal Council, in which case also similar procedure was followed regarding pre-trap Panchnama. Witness deposed that in that matter, the trap had failed and that they returned to Osmanabad and were relieved at about 10.00 a.m. on 11th April 2007 itself. He stated that he went back to his office at about 10.30 a.m. on 11th April 2007 and after some time he was again asked to go to A.C.B. office, Osmanabad on 11th April 2007. Thus, in the cross-examination by Accused itself, details were asked and the witness has given particulars. What the Panch PW-2 deposed, gets corroborated from PW-3 Mohammad Yunus also, who deposed (in Para-6 of his evidence in cross-examination) that the Panchas had earlier been called on 10th April 2007 and there was trap arranged in another case with the same Panchas. The witness admitted that in the event of failure of trap, it is necessary to make report to S.P., A.C.B., after noting the same in concerned register. The witness deposed that he can produce the record about non materialization of the trap arranged on 10th April, 2007. The witness denied that for the present matter, Panchas had come to the office on 10th April 2007 at about 3.00 p.m. and that he had introduced the complainant Yuvraj Yede to them at that time. PW-3 was confronted with the contents of pre -trap Panchnama Exhibit 14 and he deposed that there was typing mistake about the date.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for Accused that this is after thought explanation of the prosecution regarding the contents of Exhibit 14 relating to date of 10th April, 2007. However, looking to the fact that PW-2 when confronted in cross-examination with the contents, gave satisfactory explanation which is further corroborated by PW-3 Mohammad Yunus, I do not find that there is reason to doubt that there was clerical error at the time of writing of the pre-trap Panchnama Exhibit 14 with reference to date of 10th April 2007. The Trial Court has considered the evidence on this count and found (in Para 35 of the Judgment) that the clerical mistake as regards date of 10th April, 2007 in the pre-trap Panchnama needs to be ignored as the same is adequately explained by the Investigating Officer in his evidence. I do not find any reason to disagree with the Trial Court.

Trial Court Judgment is Sound and Maintainable

(A). If the Judgment of the Trial Court is perused, the Trial Court has dealt with the arguments which are being advanced even now. Trial Court referred to Section 20(1) of the Corruption Act with regard to raising of presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration so as to presume that the same was accepted or obtained as a motive as is mentioned in Section 7 of the Corruption Act. Referring to the case law on this count, the Trial Court found that passing of money to the Accused was abundantly established in the present matter and the Accused had to justify accepting of amount and to show that he had not accepted the same as bribe but it was towards the repayment of loan. Trial Court found that Accused failed in this regard. Trial Court has considered the cross examination of complainant which revealed that the complainant had received the measurement book and xerox copy of the bill on 9th April, 2007 from Chairman of Sanstha, Yuvraj Jadhav and the suggestion that the same was given to him to bring the layout plan and map from the Accused. This has been discussed by the Trial Court in the context of the claim of the Accused that the complainant had no authority. The Trial Court discussed further evidence to record that the complainant was aware of the minute details of the work, regarding the part payment and the amounts due and procedural requirements needed by the Executive Engineer. Trial Court found that it could not be held that the complainant had no nexus with the work of construction of Nala by the Sanstha. Trial Court also found that there was no reason to doubt the evidence of PW''s 1 to 3 and there was no reason for PW-1 and PW-2 to falsely implicate the Accused.

(B). The Trial Court found that there was vague suggestion that Rs.2000/- were borrowed by the complainant from the Accused 5-6 months back. The evidence was discussed to show that if the complainant had prior acquaintance with the Accused and members of his family, the wife of the Accused would not have made enquiry with the complainant about his name so as to inform her husband about his arrival on 12th April, 2007.

(C) It has been argued on behalf of the Accused that in the complaint Exhibit 19 the complainant had himself mentioned that he had no money transaction with the Accused and that he did not have any quarrel with the Accused. According to the learned counsel for Accused, this recording in anticipation, indicates that there must have been money transactions between the complainant and Accused. In this regard, the Trial Court observed (in Para 28 of the Judgment) that this will not directly prove the prior existence of money transactions between them. Trial Court, after discussing the evidence recorded that the defence was poor and baseless and that there was absence of sufficient evidence about existence of prior transactions of hand - loan.

(D). Before the Trial Court also the question was raised regarding distance between Bhoom and Osmanabad and the claim that the complainant on 11th April 2007, could not have reached Osmanabad from Bhoom after the initial demand was made in the time concerned. The Trial Court discussed evidence on this count and found that the time of narrating the complaint is not mentioned in Exhibit 19 and noted that in ordinary course of conduct of such common individuals, no greater importance is given to time. It was observed that presence of the complainant at the office of A.C.B. at 2.00 p.m. as stated by the complainant, may not be exact. It has been found that this by itself does not prove that the events are false.

(E). The Trial Court (in Para 37 of the Judgment) discussed the defence of the Accused that he was not in his office for the whole day of 11th April, 2007. Referring to the statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Trial Court observed that the Accused claimed that he was out of station or away from Bhoom continuously from 10.30 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. It was observed that even if it is accepted that he was attending the meeting at 2.00 p.m. at the office of Tahsildar, Washi, there was no positive evidence on record to show that the meeting was held at the scheduled time and the Accused was physically attending the same. Trial Court observed that the Accused had not examined his driver of vehicle to produce copies of entries in the log-book on this count to show that he was away from the office.

(F). Relying on the pre-trap Panchnama which had been admitted, the Trial Court found that even the initial demand has been established. The Trial Court discarded the defence of the Accused and found the Accused guilty.

Going through the Judgment of the Trial Court as discussed above, I do not find that there are any perversities or reasons which could not be sustained. Having gone through the material on record independently also and after going through the Judgment of the Trial Court, I do not find reasons to disagree with the Trial Court. The findings and reasons appear to be acceptable.

Case Law

The learned counsel for Appellant - Accused relied on the case of Goa State Bank Co-op. Ltd. vs. Kurtarkar Traders, reported in 2010 (1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) Page 121, to argue that the authority letter had not been duly proved. I find that the Ruling relied on is with reference to Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and is in the context of authorization to file complaint. That cannot be compared with the present facts which have been discussed above and show that the complainant had been asked by the Chairman to go and get the layout plan and map from the Accused and the demand of bribe took place.

The learned counsel for Appellant relied on the following Cases:

(I) Anil Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand through C.B.I., reported in 2013(1) A.J.R. Page 203,

(ii) Unreported case of Shri C. Hemanth Kumar s/o C.V. Chidanandamurthy vs. Karnataka Lokayuktha in Criminal Petition No. 11477 of 2011 of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad,

(iii) Surender Kumar s/o Bansidhar Gupta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2014 All M.R.(Cri.) Page, 129.

(iv) Avinash Sitaram Garware vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 All M.R.(Cri.) Page 15.

After going through the Judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the Accused, I find that the concerned Judgments are on the basis of their facts and present matter will have to be decided on its own facts. In the matter of Avinash Sitaram Garware (supra), relied on behalf of the Accused himself, it has been observed in Para 27 that:-

"In criminal cases, it is difficult and not always advisable to contend that the ratio of a particular judgment is applicable to the case on hand because factual matrix of criminal cases widely differ".

In the present matter also having gone through the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for Accused, I find that the present matter will have to be decided on the basis of its own factual matrix and weighing the evidence on the basis of established principles of law.

Having gone through the material available on record, I do not find that there is any reason to interfere in the Judgment of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. I have independently also weighed the evidence on record and find that the same is acceptable. There is no substance in the argument doubting pre-trap Panchnama, or witnesses on the basis of their sense of time. The defence that Accused did not receive gratification but that it was loan which was being returned, is rejected. There is no motive for Complainant to falsely implicate Accused. The points of determination recorded above, need to be answered in the affirmative. The prosecution has proved that the Appellant - Accused demanded illegal gratification from the complainant and that he did obtain such illegal gratification for the purpose of giving layout plan and map, which he was, in ordinary course, duty bound to give.

There is no substance in the Criminal Appeal. The Criminal Appeal is rejected. The impugned Judgment dated 1st August, 2009 in Special Case (AC) No.6 of 2008 passed by the Special Judge, Osmanabad, is maintained. The Appellant- accused to surrender to the Bail Bonds.