RAM RIJHUMAL KRIPLANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is Ram Rijhumal Kriplani, original accused No. 1, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, of often CM under Section 120-B of the. Indian Penal Code and Section 165-A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is a sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300, or a default sentence of one month's further rigorous imprisonment. No separate sentence has been passed upon him under Section 165-A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts as contended by the prosecution may now shortly be stated. There were three persons charged in this case and, as I have just said, the present appellant was accused No. 1. The charge against the three accused was that during the period between 19th November 1954 and 30th April 1955, they did agree to do an illegal act, to wit, to offer gratification other than legal remuneration, to Bhaskar Bhikaji Kulkarni and Pandurang Genda Patil, the Police Constables attached to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Police, Greater Bombay, as a motive or reward for showing favour or forbearing to show disfavour in the matter of helping accused No. 1 in connection with a case which was pending against him (accused No. 1), the said case being Special Case No. 9 of 1955, in which case Bhaskar Bhikaji Kulkarni and Pandurang Genda Patil were prosecution witnesses, and that thereby all the three accused committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. There was a further charge against accused No. 3 and that charge was that in furtherance of the above-mentioned criminal conspiracy he, on 1st May 1955, offered a sum of Rs. 50 as gratification other than legal remuneration to Bhaskar Bhikaji Kulkarni, which amount if Bhaskar Bhikaji Kulkarni had illegally accepted, he would have been guilty of committing an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in this manner that accused No. 3 had committed an offence punishable under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code. There was an alternative charge against all the three accused persons and the alternative charge against accused No. 3 was that by offering illegal gratification to Bhaskar Bhikaji Kulkarni he had committed an offence under Section 165-A and the alternative charge against accused Nos. 1 and 2 was a charge of having abetted the commission of an offence under Section 165-A by accused No. 3. In this manner accused Nos. 1 and 2 were alternatively charged with having committed an offence under Section 165-A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) ACCUSED No. 1, the present appellant, was at one time working as an officer in the Co-operative Department. Accused No. 2 was then a peon working in the said department. The prosecution case is that accused No. 2 was working under accused No. 1. Accused No. 3 is alleged to be a friend of one Mohan Kriplani, who is said to be a relative of accused No. 1. It would appear that a complaint was filed against the present accused No. 1 and one Khatri by one Sayyed of the Modern Tanners Cooperative Society at Dharavi and the complaint was that the accused No. 1 and Khatri were demanding illegal gratification from the officers of the Modern Tanners Co-operative Society to the tune of Rs. 2,500 in connection with the discharge of their official duties. Consequent upon that complaint the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Police, of which S. I. Patil, who is a prosecution witness in this case was a member, organised a trap and the trap was laid on the 19th November 1954. After due investigation, that case, which arose out of the complaint of Sayyed, was committed to the Court. A charge-sheet therein was sent up against the present accused No. 1 and Khatri on the 10th March 1955. The special Judge issued a process in that case and the process was returnable on the 17th March 1955. The case was provisionally fixed for hearing on 12th April 1955. It so happened that on the 12th April 1955, the learned Special Judge was busy with other cases and so the case against accused No. 1 and Khatri was postponed to the 15th April 1955. Even on the 15th April 1955, the case was not taken up and the hearing of it was postponed to the 29th April 1955. The prosecution contention is that the acceptance of the amount of Rs. 50 which was offered by accused No. 3 to Bhaskar Bhikaji Kulkarni took place on the 1st May 1953.