SUNANDA HANUMANTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against conviction was filed by the original accused Hanamantappa Mutyappa Vijapure challenging his conviction under the prevention of Corruption Act. He was working as a clerk and when the complainant went to him for getting solvency certificate, he demanded bribe. A trap Mas laid, he was caught and then came to be convicted. However, during the pendency of the appeal accused died and his appeal is continued by his legal heirs Mho are the wife and children of the original accused, Appeal is continused by them because due to conviction of the criminal accused who Mas the Government servant, the government is not releasing his provident Fund, gratuity and other benefits. The appellants-heirs of original deceased have no source of income and they were deprived of those benefits because of this conviction.

(2.) I heard Mr. Nitin jamdar advocate for the appellants and APP for the state. it was submitted by mr. jamadar that civil service rules are harsh in as much as the Provident fund and gratuity which is meant for the dependents of the government servant can be withheld by the government in case the Government servant is found guilty of such charges. He submitted that family members or the dependents of the government employee may not have any role to play in such activities of the Government servant so as to deprive them of these benefits because of their father or husband being found guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This submission may be justified in certain circumstances and situation but nothing can be done about it by any courts because those Rules are there, they have been accepted and followed everywhere.

(3.) MR, Jamdar next contended that the accused was merely a clerk and the amount of bribe demanded by him is Rs. l50/=. Therefore according to him the accused is entitled is entitled for acquittal on the basis of certain judgments of this court on the doctrine of triviality. He relied upon the judegement of this court reported in 1992 (2) Bom. C. R. 547 Arjun prahlad kale vs. the state of maharashtra where the bribe amount was rs 40/- the accused came to be convicted by the trial court. This judgement was set aside by justice saldanha and the advocate for the accused relied upon the earlier judgment reported in 1991 mah. L. J. 976. The advocate for the appellants also relied upon an unreported judgment of justice Saldanha in appeal No. 253 of 1984 Bhagwan jathya Bhoir vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on 19th/20th august, 1991. In that Justice saldanha had after analysing the scheme of the prevention of Corruption Act held that in trifling of petty cases where the amount of the alleged bribe is extremely small the legislature could never have intended that the public servant in question ought to be subject to the rigorous of criminal trials in so far as the punishment for such an offence even if established, could never be the minimum prescribed under the law, namely, that of one year's rigorous imprisonment. It was further held that in the light of the judgment wherein the amount of bribe was Rs. 30/= and in the appeal the amount was Rs. 40/=, the sanction order will have to be struck down on the ground that there has been no due application of mind. The learned Judge observed that in that view of the matter the prosecution itself would be vitiated and conviction cannot survive. this judgement reported in 1992 (2) bom. c. r. 547 arun prahlad kale was followed by justice saldanha again in 1993 mh. l. j. page 573 shivchalappa gurumortyappa loni vs. state of maharashtra with more elaboration on this point. paragraph 6 of the said Judgment is reproduced hereinbelow :