CHAITANYA PRAKASH AUDICHYA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the accused who at the relevant time was working as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Vasco-da-Gama against Judgment dated 22-1-2010 in Special Case No.6 of 2009 by which the accused has been convicted and sentenced under Section 13(2) r/w Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 30-5-2003 from Bhandari Chandrasekhar, Proprietor of M/s J.C.S. Associates, Fatorda, Goa, for the purpose of issuance of licences which he had applied for on 7-5-2003 under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) THE complaint against the accused was filed by the said Shri Bhandari Chandrasekhar who was examined as PW1 and the raid was conducted by PW6/CBI Police Inspector Shri Bhalchandra M. Chonkar. The raid was witnessed by Ranjeet Thakur and Shri Karapurkar, both Officers of Bank of India, Panaji, the former having been examined as PW2. The prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses, the last being PW8/CBI Dy. S.P. Shri F. B. Karna who had continued with and completed the investigations.

(3.) THE learned Special Judge after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the CBI had levelled and proved the charges against the accused of taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act under direct evidence of PW1/Bhandari and PW2/Thakur and corroborating evidence of PW3/Sadanand, PW6/P.I.Chonkar, PW8/Dy.S.P. Karna and DW1/Karamchandra and thus the prosecution had established that the accused being a public servant was found taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of his official act. The learned Special Judge also held that the evidence of PW4/Sehgal showed that the sanction was properly accorded by application of mind. The learned Special Judge further held that the hand wash of the accused had tested positive for phenolphthalein thus negating the plea that the currency notes were thrust in his T shirt pocket by PW1/Bhandari. The learned Special Judge held that there was a presumption in terms of Section 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988 which presumption was unrebutted in the face of the prosecution case proved against him beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the accused had not given any explanation for Rs.10,000/- found on his person which was not and could not have been legal remuneration accepted by the accused in discharge of his official act of issuing a licence or a certificate to the complainant PW1/Bhandari, and thus the prosecution had established that the accused as a public servant had taken gratification other than legal remuneration, and, therefore proceeded to convict and sentence the accused as aforesaid.