SHANKAR MOHANIRAJ GHOTANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, at the relevant time a Senior Police Inspector attached to the Azad Nagar Police Station at Malegaon in Nashik District, was put on trial before the learned Special Judge, Nashik. on a corruption charge. It was alleged that on the night of 24 -6 -1986, pursuant to a trap that was laid by the Anti -Corruption Bureau, he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 200/ - from the complainant Naim Nazim Ansari. The prosecution alleges that one Mohamed Hanif had lodged a complaint at the Police Station stating that on 13 -6 - 1986 at about 9 p.m. two persons, namely, Iqbal and the complainant. Naim, had attacked him, abused him and threatened him. He had alleged that offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code had been committed. Pursuant to this complaint, which was treated as a non -cognizable complaint and recorded in the non -cognizable complaint register, which fact is of some significance, the Police Inspector sent for the complainant, Naim. The sister of Naim by name Farida is a practising advocate and the record indicates that she used to regularly appear on behalf of the main accused Iqbal. It further appears that this Iqbal was one of the persons often on the wrong side of the law and that there appears to be a history of hostility between him and Mohamed Hanif who used to lodge complaints against Iqbal who, in turn, used to be released by Farida. the sister of the complainant, Naim.

(2.) WHEN the Police Constable Bhavsar came to the residence of Naim on 14 -6 -1986 and informed him that he was required to attend the Police Station, Farida sent the Police Constable back on the false ground that Naim was not in the house. She thereafter telephoned the Police Station and spoke to the Accused who was the Police Inspector incharge. Subsequently, Farida contacted the Public Prosecutor at the Court by the name Mahajan whose orderly a Police Constable by name Tisge was asked to procure a copy of the complaint, obviously because Farida desired to know as to what the nature of the charge was against her brother. Tisge got a copy of the complaint from the Police Station on the ground that the Public Prosecutor had asked for it and this was handed over to Farida. The Public Prosecutor also had occasion to enquire from the Accused about the complaint. Subsequently, the local Corporator by name Qureshi had met the Accused who, in turn, told him that he should ask Naim to attend the Police Station in connection with the non -cognizable complaint, that nothing would happen to him and that the Police only required him for the purpose of obtaining his say. On 22 -6 -1986. Corporator Qureshi accompanied Naim to the Police Station and met the Accused. The record further shows that as is customary in such cases that the Accused was warned not to involve himself in acts that may constitute a breach of peace and that he was subsequently allowed to go. It is, however, the case of the complainant, Naim, that in the course of the meetings that he had with the Accused that the Police Officer had threatened him with arrest, that he had also told him to meet him alone and that on 23 -6 -1986 he had demanded Rs. 200/ - from him in order to forebear from placing him under arrest. Naim is alleged to have stated that he did not have the money and that he would bring it the next day. On the morning of 24 -6 -1986. he approached the Anti -Corruption Bureau Authorities at Nashik and lodged a complaint. The matter was taken up by the Additional Superintendent of Police. Anti -Corruption Bureau, Nashik Division. Shri Kasharam Thore, who recorded the First Information Report. sent for the Panchas and thereafter prepared the pre -trap Panchanama. The currency notes totalling Rs. 200/ -, of which the numbers were noted, were treated with anthracene powder and these were put in the shirt pocket of the complainant. One of the Panchas by name Jamaloddin was instructed to accompany the complainant to the Police Station and he was specifically instructed not to leave the place because it was from there that he had to see and hear everything that transpired. In keeping with the legal requirement, the complainant and the Panch had both been told that the money should only be parted with on the Accused making a demand for the same. The raiding party thereafter left for Malegaon.

(3.) WHAT followed thereafter is routine. The complainant and the Panch are alleged to have met the Accused and some talk took place. The accused asked for the money which was handed over to him and he counted it and thereafter put it into his wallet which was taken out from his left trouser pocket and was thereafter replaced in the same pocket. The complainant came out of the room and wiped his face with the handkerchief, which was the pre -arranged signal, whereupon the raiding party rushed in and apprehended the Accused. It is alleged that on being checked with the ultra -violet lamp that anthracene powder was noticed on both the hands of the Accused as also on one side of his wallet. He was asked to produce the money in question which was produced by him from his wallet and the currency -notes totalling Rs. 200/ -, which had been treated with anthracene powder, were recovered from the wallet under a Panchanama. On completion of the investigation, a complaint was filed and the Accused was put on trial before the learned Special Judge, Nashik. The learned Special Judge accepted the evidence in respect of both heads of charge, that is to say the one under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and the one under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and convicted the appellant -accused. He was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months on each count. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been directed.