RAMDASZAPARAJI SHAHANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947. The accused/appellant a the relevant time, i. e. in the month of May, 1984, was working as Head Constable attached to Selu Police Station of Wardha district and was such a public servant.

(2.) THE prosecution story is that the complainant Yashwant Ganjare made a report in the police station on 4-5-1984, suggesting that his crop was burnt by one Rambhau Surkar. He claimed in the report that this was told to him by one Shamrao Wanode. He also claimed that he had actually seen Rambhau Surkar in the light of the said blaze. This report was registered as Crime no. 49/84 under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. One Head Constable Gulabrao bearing buckle No. 599 registered this offence against Rambhau Surkar. It was investigated by P. W. 4 rupchand Tiwari who prepared a panchanama of the spot of the offence. Thereafter he handed over the case diary to the accused Ramdas Shahane who was also a Head Constable. The prosecution story is that Ramdas Shahane recorded the statement of the witness on 5-5-1984, and informed the complainant Yashwant Ganjare that there was really no action possible to be taken against Rambhau Surkar as there was no evidence. The complainant claimed that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/- for carrying out the further investigation and unless the amount was paid the investigation could not be carried further. It is further claimed that the accused again demanded Rs. 200/- from the complainant if he wanted to get the said Rambhau Surkar to be arrested. It was the claim of the complainant that he demanded this amount on 16-5-1984. He also expressed his inability to pay the amount of Rs. 200/- on which the accused brought down the demand to Rs. 100/ -. He further claimed that on 18-5-1984, the accused again met him near deepchand School at Selu and the demand was again reiterated. The complainant, therefore, claimed that he was going to his sister's husband for arranging the cash and he was called by the accused at 4 O'clock in his house to give the bribe of Rs. 100/ -. It was on this material that the complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau at Wardha on 18-5-1984, at about 1. 30 p. m. The Investigating Officer Police Inspector Thakare immediately called two panchas, namely, Shri Atkar and Shri Deokar and apprised them of the complaint lodged by complainant Yashwant Ganjare whereupon the usual demonstration of the phenolphthalein powder and the sodium carbonate solution was explained to the panchas, the notes which were produced by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and it was decided that panch Atkar is examined as P. W. 1 should accompany the complainant to the house of the accused and watch the proceedings if the accused demanded the bribe money. Accordingly, the police proceeded from Wardha to Selu where the accused was to accept the bribe amount. It is an admitted case that the complainant and the panch went upto the house of the accused and when the accused was approached by the complainant, he refused to accept the money. Now the version of the panch and the complainant is conflicting here because, according to the complainant, the complainant did not broach the subject instead the accused was invited by him to his village for meat-party on which the accused agreed to come to his house at Ghorad for meat-party. Accordingly to the complainant, he and Atkar returned towards the jeep and went to village Ghorad in the jeep. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter they waited for the accused to come at Ghorad but since the accused did not come, a panchnama was executed and the police party excepting the compplainant left village Ghorad. The police party again assemble at the house of the complainant in the morning on the next day, i. e. on 19-5-1984, in the hope that at least on that date the complainant would be coming. Here also the version of the witnesses is slightly conflicting. While according to the panch and the complainant, the accused had agreed to go to Ghorad on the next day, i. e. on 19-5-1984, according to the panchnama and the investigating officer, the accused had agreed to go to the house of the complainant at Ghorad on the same day, i. e. in the evening of 18-5-1984. Be that as it may, again the accused never turned up to Ghorad upto 2 O'clock on the next day and, therefore, the police party decided to approach the accused at his place if possible after locating him. The police party accordingly went upto the village Selu where the jeep was stopped and the complainant and the panch proceeded to the house of the accused where the accused was not found. They came to know that the accused had gone to the S. T. stand. Therefore, the twosome went to the S. T. stand and not finding the accused there also, they came back to the police station. Again the visit to the S. T. stand is omitted to be stated by the complainant but that is not material. What is material is that the twosome came to the police station and found the accused to be sleeping in the police station. He was woken up and was taken to a canteen which is nearby for a cup of tea. It is the case of the prosecution that the money was not paid while the tea was being taken but after the panch, the complainant and the accused came out of the hotel and started proceeding towards the police station in the way the money was passed on the demand by the accused. This story is again contradicted by none-else but the complainant himself but for the present suffice it to say that thereafter the agreed signal was given by the complainant on which the raiding party tried to apprehend the accused. However, the accused entered the police station from one door and left it by another. He was given a chase and was apprehended within about 100 to 150 feet of the police station. The demonstrations were conducted which showed that the hands of the accused were stained with phenolphthalein. The money was recovered, according to the prosecution, at the instance of the complainant from above a cupboard kept in the main hall of the police station. The further investigation was conducted by the investigating officer. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, executed the panchnama and also seized the documents in respect of the crime which was already registered against Rambhau Surkar. After completion of the investigation, the sanction was sought which was granted for prosecuting the accused and on that basis a charge-sheet came to be presented.

(3.) THE defence of the accused was that of complete denial and false implication. The accused averred that because the accused had refused to take an action against Rambhau Surkar on the basis of the report filed by the complainant, the complainant had been agitated and that had resulted in the false implication of the accused. The defence did not prevail and the accused came to be convicted on the basis of the evidence led before the trial Court.