CHANDRAKANT RATILAL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXCEPTIONAL as it may seem, this set of appeals concerns the familiar situation of an approach being made to a Minister that the law should be transgressed, the reward offered being a large sum of money. That the offer and the temptation to indulge in a corrupt practice emanates from the beneficiary of such dubious schemes, with the public official falling a prey to the incentive that is held out, is the general pattern and it is equally common place to find an ever willing response from the party in power. It is indeed unusual and in fact very rare to find a person of integrity who not only resists the attractiveness of the bribe but has the moral and physical courage to bring the culprits to book. This case represents the out of the ordinary and deals with an outstanding Home Minister of the Maharashtra Government who displayed exceptional integrity and courage and went through the exercise of having the entire gang which included a senior lawyer, trapped; and then withstood the rigours of a protracted trial and all the counter attacks on him that this was a political play to project his image as a person of high moral fibre, and who saw the operation through successfully. This case presents an object lesson and is illustrative of how a single principled individual can withstand corrupt forces and successfully bring them to book. The conduct displayed by the then Home Minister Mr. Bhai Vaidya is commendable and should serve as a pointer to all those man and women in public life who still live by principles and uphold the value system.

(2.) THE present appeal alongwith the four companion matters viz. Criminal Appeal Nos. 270, 271 and 275 of 1985, assail the correctness of the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 12 of 1980. The accused were put on trial before the Special Court, for offences punishable under section 120-B read with sections 161 and 165-A I. P. C. as also sections 165-A read with section 161 I. P. C. The learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment as also to fine.

(3.) THE case in question had attracted a considerable amount of public attention at the relevant time. The complainant, Mr. Bhai Vaidya was the then Minister of State for Home in the Maharashtra Government. One of his duties was to pass orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as `cofeposa ). By virtue of his office, the power was also vested in Mr. Vaidya to revoke such orders that had been passed. The prosecution alleges that accused No. 6 who is a resident of Pune from where Mr. Vaidya originally hails, was well-known to the complainant for several years. It is alleged that detention orders were passed against four persons who were friends/relatives of accused No. 1 and that those orders had been passed in 1975 and 1976. The warrants could not be executed as the wanted persons were in Dubai. Applications for review of those orders had been rejected and a representation in respect thereof which had been made to the Home Minister had also been not successful.