Bombay HC Acquits Its Employee From Bribe Charges
Bombay HC Acquits Its Employee From Bribe Charges
Bombay HC Acquits Its Employee From Bribe Charges
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
SHRIDHARCHAVAN
C
ou
CRIMINALAPPEALNO.1069OF2013
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
..APPELLANT
Versus
THESTATEOFMAHARASHTRA
..RESPONDENT
ig
h
Mr.GirishKulkarni,AdvocatewithMr.M.G.Shukla,Advocatefor
theappellant.
Mr.DeepakThakre,APPfortheRespondentState.
CORAM:ABHAYM.THIPSAY,J.
JUDGMENTRESERVED:11 thAUGUST2015
ba
y
JUDGMENTPRONOUNCED:13thOCTOBER2015
JUDGMENT:
om
TheappellantwhowasworkingasaChobdaronthe
challengingthejudgmentandorderdeliveredbytheSpecialJudge
forGreaterMumbaiappointedunderSection3thePreventionof
CorruptionAct,1988(hereinafterreferredtoas'theP.C.Act'forthe
sakeofconvenience).Bythesaidjudgmentandorder,thelearned
Special Judge convicted the appellant of offences punishable
underSection7andsection13(2)readwithSection13(1)(d)of
2/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
theP.C.Act,andsentencedhimtosufferRigorousImprisonment
rt
for1(one)year,andtopayafineofRs.2,000/oneachofthesaid
C
ou
twocounts.
ThecasearoseonacomplaintlodgedbyoneShriAnil
Bugde(PW1),anAdvocate.Theappellant,atthematerialtime,
ig
h
wasattachedtoanHon'bleJudgepresidingoverC.R.No.27.The
case,inbrief,maybestatedthus:
BugdehadfiledanapplicationinthisCourtonbehalf
ofoneSmt.Vaishali,hisclient.On8/10/2010,Bugdewenttothe
ba
y
CourtRoomNo.27,approachedthestaffandinquiredwiththem
as to whether he could get urgent circulation of the Criminal
Applicationfiledbyhim.Theaccused,atthattime,informedhim
om
thattheHon'bleJudgeusuallydidnotgranturgentcirculations,
butifurgentcirculationwasrequired,Bugdewouldhavetopay
3/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
allegedlymadebytheappellant. Thisverificationwassoughtto
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
4/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
noticedonthehandsoftheappellantandalsoonthepantpocket
rt
oftheuniformwhichhewaswearing.Theposttrappanchnama
C
ou
wasdrawn.
Furtherinvestigationwascarriedout.Oncompletion
oftheinvestigation,achargesheetcametobefiledagainstthe
ig
h
appellant.
ba
y
om
IhaveheardMr.GirishKulkarni,learnedcounselfor
theappellant. IhaveheardMr.DeepakThakre,learnedAPPfor
5/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
theState.Withtheirassistance,Ihavecarefullygonethroughthe
rt
evidenceadducedduringthetrial.Ihavecarefullyexaminedthe
C
ou
entirerecordofthetrialCourt,andhavestudiedtheimpugned
judgment,carefully.
Mr.GirishKulkarni,learnedcounselfortheappellant
ig
h
contendedthattheconvictionoftheappellant,asrecordedbythe
learned Special Judge, is not in accordance with law. He
submittedthattherewereanumberofdoubtfulaspectsasregards
theprosecutioncase.Hesubmittedthatthecomplainant,though
anAdvocate,couldnotbetermedasareliablewitnessatall,and
ba
y
om
6/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
thereweresomebasicinfirmitiesinthecaseoftheprosecution.
C
ou
October2010inthepresenceofthepanchRahulShringare(PW
2).wassatisfactorilyproved. Hesubmittedthatonthebasisof
accordancewithlaw.
ig
h
the proof of this fact, the Court may decide the matter in
learnedcounselfortheappellant,itwouldbepropertoconsider
ba
y
theevidenceofthecomplainantinallthenecessarydetails.
Thecomplainant,inhisevidence,statedthathehad
om
beenpractisingasanAdvocatesincetheyear1995,mostlyonthe
Criminalside.That,hewaspractisinginallCourts,includingthe
7/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
unabletoremainpresentintheCourtatMazgaon,Mumbaifor
rt
C
ou
filedinthisCourt,aCriminalApplicationbearingNo.4301/2010
for transfer of the case from the Court of the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai to the Court of a Magistrate at
Ghudegaon,PuneDistrict.That,thesaidApplicationwasfiledin
ig
h
ba
y
om
thatCourtasa'Chobdar'.Thecomplainantmadeenquirieswith
himalso,regardingthecirculation,whentheappellantinformed
himthattheHon'bleJudgewouldnotgranturgentcirculation,but
thaturgentcirculationcouldbemanaged.Whenthecomplainant
asked him 'how would he be able to do this', he asked the
complainanttocomeoutoftheCourthall.Thecomplainantthen
8/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
appellant. That,atthattime,theappellanttoldhimthatifthe
C
ou
ig
h
obtainingcirculation,whereupontheappellanttoldhimthatthose
who required urgent circulation were paying Rs.1,000/,
otherwise,thematterwouldbepostedintheroutinecourse.The
ba
y
awareofthenameoftheappellantatthattime. He,however,
negotiatedthematterwiththeappellantwhentheappellanttold
him tohandover Rs.500/tohimimmediately,andtopaythe
om
remainingamountofRs.500/afterwards.Thecomplainantthen
immediatelygaveonecurrencynoteofRs.500/denominationto
theappellantinthecorridorinfrontofCourtRoomNo.27,itself.
Healsohandedoverapraecipe(circulationslip)(Exhibit10)to
theappellant,alongwiththesaidcurrencynote.
10
The complainantthenwenttotheofficeoftheAnti
9/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
complainanttotheDirectorGeneraloftheACB.Thematterwas
C
ou
ig
h
sayingthatthecognizanceofthecomplaint couldnotbetaken
withoutverifyingitscorrectness.TwopanchasRahulShringare
(PW 2) and Jambhulkar were called. The contents of the
ba
y
himselfandboththepanchaswouldgototheHighCourtbuilding
alongwiththe complainant. Shindealsoplannedtorecordthe
conversationthatwouldtakeplacebetweenthecomplainantand
om
thepanchasbyusingaDigitalRecorder.RahulShringarewasto
accompanythecomplainant,anditwasdecidedtointroducehim
asthebrotheroftheapplicantSmt.Vaishali.Thecomplainant,the
panchasandACPShahajiShinde(PW3)wenttotheHighCourt
buildingatabout5.05p.m. Thecomplainanthadattachedthe
digitalrecorderprovidedtohim,insidehisshirt.Thecomplainant
10/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
andthepanchShringarewenttoCourtRoomNo.27.Theywere
rt
C
ou
ig
h
soughtadvicefromhimaboutthefurthercourseofaction. The
appellanttoldthecomplainantthatitwasnecessarytoverifyfrom
the Board Department, whereafter the complainant Rahul
Shringareandtheappellant,allwenttotheBoardDepartment.
The appellant enquired with the staff about the Criminal
ba
y
ApplicationNo.4301/10whenthestaffinformedthatthematter
had been fixed and placed before Court Room No.6 on
om
11/10/2010.
11
Thecomplainant,theappellantandthepanchthen
11/67
Tilak
12
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
The complainantandRahulShringarethenwentto
rt
theACBofficeatWorli.TheconversationrecordedintheDigital
C
ou
Recorderwhichwasprovidedtothecomplainantwasheard,and
atranscriptandaCDthereofwaspreparedintheofficeofthe
ACB.Thestatementofthecomplainantwasrecorded,andaFirst
Information Report was registered (Exhibit12). It was then
calledon11/10/2010.
On11/10/2010,whenthe complainantwenttothe
13
ig
h
officeoftheACBatabout10.00a.m,apartfromACPShindeand
ba
y
someotherOfficers,boththepanchaswerealsoalreadypresent
there. The complainantwasexplainedtheprocedureoflaying
trap.Theconversationthatwouldtakeplaceduringthetrapwas
om
toberecordedbyusingdigitalvoicerecorder. 5(five)currency
notes of Rs.100/ denomination were handed over by the
complainanttoACPShindeasthetrapamount.Byadoptingusual
procedure,thedetailsofwhicharegivenbythecomplainantinhis
evidence,atrapwaslaid. Anthracin powderwasappliedtothe
saidcurrencynotes.ThepropertiesoftheAnthracinpowderwere
explainedtothecomplainantandthepanchas.Thecomplainant
was instructed not to touch the said currency notes, till the
12/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
appellantwouldmakeademandfortheamount. Afterhanding
14
C
ou
signalbyrollinghislefthandoverhishead.
rt
overtheamounttotheappellants,thecomplainantwastogivea
ig
h
Shringarewerewalkingtogetherandtheothermembersofthe
raidingpartywerefollowingthemfromsomedistance.Whenthe
complainantandthepanchreachedinfrontoftheCourtRoom
No.27, they met the appellant who was present there. The
appellant informed the complainant that the matter had been
ba
y
placedbeforetheHon'bleJudge.Theappellantthensaidthatthe
complainant'sworkhadbeendoneanddemandedtheremaining
amountofRs.500/. The complainanthandedoverthetainted
om
amountwhichtheappellantacceptedbyhisrighthandandkept
inhisleftsidepantpocket. Aftertheamountwasaccepted,the
complainantgavepredeterminedsignaltotheraidingpartyafter
whichtheappellantwasapprehended. Hewastakentoaroom
situateintheHighCourtbuildingusedasasecurityoffice.After
some inquiries were made with the complainant and panch
Shringare by ACP Shinde, all proceeded towards Azad Maidan
PoliceStation,andthentotheofficeoftheACB.
13/67
Tilak
rt
15
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
ig
h
the(cause)listtothe complainant,andshowedthathismatter
wasthere. That,somediscussionsthentookplacebetweenthe
complainantand the appellant,and that these discussions were
ba
y
beforewhomitwaslisted.Theappellantinformedthatthematter
hadbeenlistedthroughtheprocessofcomputerandnotmanually.
The appellant then demanded an amount of Rs.500/ from the
om
complainant,onwhichthe complainantrepliedthattheamount
wouldbegivenonMonday.
16
speakaboutgoingnearCourtRoomNo.27.Accordingtohim,the
complainantwas notpresent in the CourtRoom, butwhen the
complainantandShringarewere waiting,he arrivedtherefrom
thestaircase.Shringarestatesaboutdiscussionsaboutthechange
14/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
oftheCourtagaintakingplacebetweenthecomplainantandthe
rt
C
ou
ig
h
17
accordancewiththecaseoftheprosecution.Hedoesspeakabout
the complainantreportingthemattertohim,thatthecomplaint
beingverified,atrapbeinglaidandtheappellantbeingtrapped.
Inthecrossexamination,certainadmissionsweregotelicitedfrom
ba
y
him,theeffectofwhichshallbediscussedatanappropriateplace.
18
om
whowasattachedtoCourtRoomNo.27,atthematerialtime,was
examinedbyreopeningthe case thatwasclosedforjudgment.
When the case had been kept for judgment, the prosecution
movedanapplicationforhisexaminationwhichwaspermittedby
thelearnedSpecialJudge. ThroughKondvilkar,theCirculation
RegistermaintainedinCourtRoomNo.27wasproduced,anda
pageinthatregister,containingaparticularentrysupposedly
madebytheappellantwastenderedinevidenceandexhibited.
15/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
19
rt
8/10/2010.
TheevidenceofSmt.Bhatkalkar,(DW1)Sheristedar
showsthaton7/10/2010,shewasattachedtotheHon'bleJudge
presidingoverCourtRoomNo.6. Accordingtoher,theHon'ble
ig
h
onthesameday,itwasgranted.Thepraecipeshowsthatshehad
puthersignaturethereon,andhadalsoputthedatebelowitas
ba
y
om
RoomNo.27,andthataspertheroster,theCriminalApplication
wasrequiredtobedealtwithbytheHon'bleJudgepresidingover
theCourtRoomNo.6.
20
Itcanatoncebenoticedthatthereareanumberof
curiousaspectsofthematterregardingwhichnoanswerscanbe
found from the evidence that was adduced before the learned
SpecialJudge.
16/67
Tilak
Thefirstandforemostisthatthetransferapplications
rt
21
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
were not being dealt with by the Hon'ble Judge presiding over
CourtRoomNo.27,atall.Thenotificationshowingtherosterwas
producedbeforethetrialCourtandwasbyconsent,markedas
'Exhibit32'.Therostershowsthatthetransferapplicationswere
ig
h
evidenceinthatregardisstillfeltrequired,thesameisavailable
inthetestimonyofSmt.SmitaBhatkalkar,whoasaforesaid,has
ba
y
categoricallystatedthatthemattermentionedforcirculation,had
nothing to do with the C.R.No.27, and that, the assignment of
Criminal Applications for transfer, was with the Hon'ble Judge
om
presidingoverC.R.No.6.
22
17/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
C
ou
client,wouldbedealtwithbytheHon'bleJudgepresidingover
C.R.No.6, and could not have been dealt with by the Hon'ble
JudgepresidingoverC.R.No.27.
ig
h
23
ba
y
fact,saysthat on8/10/2010atabout11.00amheattendedthe
HighCourtandwaspresentinC.R.No.27. Heevendoesnotsay
that he, by mistake believed the matter to be pertaining to
om
C.R.No.27,andthat,inthatbelief,hehadgonetoC.R.No.27.
24
circulationhadalreadybeengrantedon7/10/2010itselfunder
the signature of the Sheristedar Smt.Smita Bhatkalkar (DW 1).
Thereisabsolutelynochallengetotheevidenceofthiswitness.
Moreover,thepraecipe(Exhibit10)itselfshowsanendorsement
asfollows:
18/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
Circulationfor11/10/10.
C
ou
Signed
(Smt.SmitaBhatkalkar)
_________________
7/10/2010
rt
Coram:V.M.Kanade,J
ig
h
evidenceofSmitaBhatkalkarandtheendorsementmadebyherin
the normal course of her duties on 7/10/2010, it has to be
ba
y
approachtheappellanton8/10/2010?
25
om
application,asaforesaid,wasgrantedanditwaslistedonboard
on 11/10/2015. The complainantdidnotattendtheCourton
thatdate,andevensubsequently.Asadmittedbythecomplainant
in his crossexamination, the said Criminal Application was
dismissedforwantofprosecutioninthemonthofMarch2011.
19/67
Tilak
(a)
Thus,thefollowingfactors:
The complainant approached the
C
ou
rt
26
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
ig
h
ba
y
(c)
om
20/67
Tilak
ThecomplainantbeinganAdvocatewasawareofthe
rt
27
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
ig
h
authorizedtodobytheconcernedHon'bleJudge.Inspiteofthis,
the complainantattemptedtogetthe circulationofthematter
fromaChobdar.Obviously,hisintentionwasnottosecureurgent
circulationofthematterintheinterestofhisclient,whichisalso
clearfromthefactthatthesaidapplicationwasnotatallpursued,
ba
y
andwasverymuchpermittedtobedismissedfornonprosecution.
Hisintentionwasclearlyto'exposecorruptionthatisgoingonin
om
whatheactuallyintendedtodo. Inhiscomplaint(Exhibit11),
thecomplainanthasmentionedthesubjectas'complaintagainst
21/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
Mumbai.(Emphasissupplied)
C
ou
agenciessuchasofficeofCommissionerofPolice,
rt
The complaintthengivesthedetailsoftheapplicationfiledby
himonbehalfofhisclientSmt.Vaishali,andthenstatesasunder:
ig
h
On8/10/2010atabout11.15p.m(itshouldbe
a.m)whenIvisitedtheCourtofxxxxx(name
of Judge omitted) presiding in Court Room
No.27forthepurposeofcirculatingtheabove
matterforurgentorderson15/10/2010,Iwas
told by the Peon of the Court along with
ba
y
om
discussionwithpeon,hetoldmethat hecan
28
Itisclearthatthecomplainantdidknowthatactually
22/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
whethercirculationwouldbegrantedornot,obviouslybecauseas
rt
discussedearlier,hewasnot,inreality,interestedinobtainingany
C
ou
circulation. Evenassumingthatthecomplainantindeedwanted
urgentcirculationofthematter,heoughttohavementionedthe
matterbeforetheHon'bleJudgeandacceptedthedecisionofthe
Hon'ble Judge, rather than making an attempt to improperly
29
ig
h
obtaincirculation.
wantedtodoistopointout/provethatsuchwrongthingstake
placeintheHighCourt. Thatcirculationwasurgentlyrequired
ba
y
wasonlyanexcuseputforthbyhimtogetthethingsgoing.Itis
significantinthiscontextthathiscomplaintdoesnotmentionas
being against any particular individual or individuals, but
om
generallyagainstpublicservants.Thecomplainanthasadmitted
inthecrossexamination,thatthecomplaintlodgedbyhimwas
notonlyagainsttheaccused,butwasalsoagainsttheotherstaff,
thoughhelaterclaimedthathiscomplaintwasonlyagainstthe
accused. Duringthe crossexamination,he volunteeredto state
that in order to curb the illegal activities, he handed over an
amountofRs.500/totheaccused. Intheexaminationinchief
itself,hehasstatedthathedecidedtoinitiateactionagainstsuch
23/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
illegal practice, and evidently, his main issue was 'fighting the
30
C
ou
thegrievanceinanyparticularworkormatter.
rt
corruptionandexposingthecorruptpublicservants'ratherthan
Theobjectofthe complainanttoexposecorruption,
isindeedlaudable.However,whenapersonispossessedbysuch
ig
h
ba
y
needstobescrutinizedwithmorethanordinarycare.
31
Itwillnotbeoutofplaceatthisstagetorefertothe
om
fromtheauthoritativepronouncementsoftheHighCourts,andof
theSupremeCourtofIndia.
32
ThecasesarisingunderthePreventionofCorruption
Act,canbebroadlydividedintotwocategories.(i)trapcasesand
(ii) Nontrap cases. Nontrap cases include cases of Criminal
24/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
misappropriation,obtainingofpecuniaryadvantagesbythepublic
rt
servantsforhimselforforothers,andcasesinvolvingpossessionof
C
ou
disproportionateassets.Amajorityofthecasescomingupbefore
theCourtsare,however,trapcases. Layingoftrapsisastepin
investigation.Theproprietyoflayingoftrapsindetectingacrime
has always been a matter of controversy and discussion by the
ig
h
SuperiorCourtsandtheApexCourt.Astudyofthecaselawupon
the subject reveals that these methods have been repeatedly
deplored by the Courts, though the Courts have regretfully
acknowledgedthenecessityofsuchmethods,onthegroundthat
otherwiseitwouldbeimpossible,oratleastdifficult,tobringto
ba
y
bookcorruptpublicservants(see ShivBahadurSinghVs.State
of Vidhya Pradesh 1, State of Bihar Vs. Basawan Singh 2,
RamanlalMohanlalVs.StateofBombay3,Ramkrishnav.Delhi
om
State,4andRamjanamSinghv.BiharState5.
33
InSomPrakashVs.StateofDelhi 6,TheirLordships
referredtolayingoftrapsasa'morallymurkymechanism',and
observed:
1
2
3
4
5
6
25/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
beoveranxiousandunderaccrupulous
rt
evidenceprocuredbysuchexperiments
Yet,layingoftrapshasbeenheldtobejustifiedasinevitablefor
ig
h
ba
y
Whereyouinterceptthenaturalcourse
of the corrupt stream by setting an
invisiblecontraptionitsethicsabove
om
34
ThepronouncementsoftheHighCourtsandSupreme
Courthaveclassifiedthetrapsinto'legitimate'and'illegitimate'.
Illegitimate traps are viewed with disapproval by the Courts.
26/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
Illegitimatetrapsarethosewhicharisewhenapublicservantis
rt
C
ou
offeringtohimsuchbribeorgratificationthoughheneverwent
outofhiswaytomakeanysuchdemand. Itmustbeunderstood
clearly that the provisions of the P.C. Act are not designed for
ascertaining whether a public servant is honest or not. Traps
ig
h
cannotbelaidfordecidingthegeneralhonestyandintegrityofa
publicservant.Trapscannotbeorganizedforobservingwhethera
publicservant,ifofferedmoneycanbeluredintodoingsomething
whichheotherwise,wouldnothavedone. In RamjanamSingh
Vs.TheStateofBihar7,itwasobservedasfollows:
ba
y
Whateverthecriminaltendenciesofa
man may be, he has a right to expect
that he will not be deliberately
om
temptedbeyondthepowersofhisfrail
endurance and provoked into breaking
the Law; and more particularly by
thosewhoareguardiansandkeepersof
thelaw.
Inthesaidcase,thereferenceas'guardiansandkeepersofthelaw'
wastothepolice,butthesaidobservationsareextremelyrelevant
inthepresentcasealsowherethecomplainantisanAdvocate
7
AIR1956SC643
27/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
employeeapublicservantworkingontheestablishmentofthe
C
ou
ig
h
35
theestablishedoracceptedrulesandstandards,isbelievedtobe,
often having ulterior intentions in levelling corruption charges
ba
y
om
mischievouslysetsbaittooneormorepublicservantsandthen,
traps them after they have acted on the luring of such
complainant,isrecognizedasa'fishingcomplainant'.Suchtraps
are deprecated as practically amounting to the abetment of an
offence,andartificiallycreatingacrime. Insuchcases,itwould
bethedutyoftheCourttoproperlyscrutinizetheevidenceofthe
complainanttoascertainthevalidity/reliabilityofhisclaimsand
to unmask his ulterior intentions. The appreciation of the
28/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
36
C
ou
bekeepinginmindthetypeofthecomplainant.
rt
evidenceofthecomplainantinatrapcase,isrequiredtobedone
Intheinstantcase,whenthe complainantcertainly
knew that the mater did not pertain to the assignment of the
Hon'ble Judge presiding over Court Room No.27, his act of
ig
h
attemptingtotakeacirculationofthematterbeforethatHon'ble
Judge, is itself suspicious. At the cost of repetition, it may be
observedthatitis not thecaseofthe complainantthathe,by
mistakebelievedthemattertobepertainingtotheassignmentof
theHon'bleJudgepresidingoverthatCourt.Hesimply,andasa
ba
y
om
thatdoesnotlikehisevidencediscloseastowhatprompted
himtoabruptlygototheCourtRoomNo.27,andseekcirculation
ofthematter. Hedidnoteventrytoascertainthenameofthe
personwhohaddemandedanamountofRs.1000/forsecuring
urgentcirculation.Hedescribedtheappellantasa'peon',andnot
asa'Chobdar'whichmeansthathedidnoteventrytoascertain
thedesignation,didnotbotheraboutanyparticularpublicservant
and wasmore concerned with the fact that 'somebody from the
29/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
employeesoftheHighCourthadmadeademand'. Hiscomplaint
rt
showsthatitwasgenerallylodgedagainsttheHighCourtstaffas
C
ou
evidentfromtheexpressionthemusedbyhimintheconcluding
partofthecomplaint.
37
ig
h
practicesareprevailingintheHighCourt,andthatHighCourt
staffobtainsmoneyand/orthatcirculationsofmattersaregranted
irregularly,illegallyandafteracceptingbribe,isfurtherconfirmed
fromthestatementsmadebythecomplainantinhisevidence.In
thecrossexamination,thisiswhathehassaid:
ba
y
AftertalkingwiththeaccusedasI
realisedthatillegalprocedurefor
granting circulation was being
takeupthatissue andtherefore,I
hadnotmentionedthematterbefore
theCourt.
(Emphasissupplied)
om
30/67
Tilak
Thereisanothermysteriousaspectofthematter.The
rt
38
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
evidenceindicatesthatthecomplainantwantedthemattertobe
listed before the Court Room No.27 itself. The insistence for
gettingthematterplacedbeforethatCourtwhenaspertheroster,
thematterwasrequiredtobeplacedbeforeCourtRoomNo.6,is
ig
h
No.27andexpressed,afterlearningthatithadbeenlistedbefore
CourtRoomNo.6,thathedidnotwantittobelistedthere. As
ba
y
observedearlier, theconductofthecomplainantdoesnotshow
thattherewasanygenuinedesiretoobtaintheurgentcirculation
ofthematter,andtherefore,thisinsistenceofthe complainant
om
bench'.Thus,thecomplainant,undoubtedly,wasmakingasurvey
oftheworkingofthisCourt,andwantedtoknowtowhatextent
illegalitiescantakeplacebypayingbribetotheHighCourtstaff.
39
Whenthecomplainanthadtakenuponhimselfsucha
task,andwantedtotestthemoralfiberofthepersonsworkingon
31/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
C
ou
Itiswellknownthatintrapcases,thereshouldbe
ig
h
40
satisfactoryevidenceoftheinitialdemandofillegalgratification
bythepublicservantconcerned. Thedemandhasbeenheldtobe
theveryfoundationoftrapcases. Itiswellsettledthatevenwith
respecttotheoffencepunishableundersection13(2)oftheP.C.
ba
y
Actreadwithsection13(1)(d)thereof,thenecessityoftherebeing
evidenceofapreviousdemand,cannotbedoneawaywith.Itis
well settled that unless the evidence of the initial demand is
om
settled,itisnotnecessarytoelaboratethisaspectofthematter
anyfurther.
41
Inthiscase,accordingtothecomplainant,hepaidan
amountofRs.500/totheappellanton8/10/2010inthemorning
itself. At that stage, of course, the complainant cannot be
32/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
decidethematteronthebasisoftheappreciationoftheevidence
C
ou
theInvestigatingOfficer.
42
ig
h
complainantregardingthefurtherhappenings,ofthepanchandof
complainantcamebacktotheHighCourtpremisesatabout5.05
ba
y
om
Shringare,theappellantissupposedtohavemadeademandfor
theremainingamountofRs.500/. Theevidenceinthatregard,
needstobecarefullyexamined.
43
33/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
CourthallandthecomplainantcalledhimoutsidetheCourthall.
rt
C
ou
complainant'scallinghimoutsidetheCourthallthattheappellant
cameout. Thus,theversionofthe complainantandthatofthe
panch Shringare about where did they meet the complainant
when they had gone to the High Court for verification of the
44
ig
h
demandofillegalgratification,isnotuniform.
Whathappenedthereafter,isalsostateddifferentlyby
ba
y
om
appellantthensaidthattheywouldhavetoverifyfromtheBoard
Department.That,thecomplainantShringareandtheappellant
34/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
out,whenthecomplainantcalledhimoutside.Shringare'sversion
rt
C
ou
complainantthathisworkofcirculationhadbeendone,andthe
matter was listed on Monday. Shringare speaks about the
appellanttakingthemtoaroom(perhapsBoardDepartment)only
thereafter, and also speaks about one list (probably cause list)
ig
h
beingshowntothecomplainantinwhichthesaidapplicationwas
shown. This variation in the version is not inconsequential or
immaterial, inasmuch according to the complainant, even the
appellantdidnotknowastowhetherthematterhadbeenlisted
onboardtilltheyallwenttotheBoardDepartmentandverified
ba
y
thesame,whileaccordingtoShringare,theappellantwasalready
awareofcirculationhavingbeengranted.
om
45
Thereisnouniformversionevenwithrespecttothe
circumstancesandthemannerinwhichtheallegeddemandofthe
35/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
hadbeenintroducedasthebrotheroftheapplicantSmt.Vaishali
rt
astowhetherhewashavingRs.500/.That,Shringaresaidthat
C
ou
hewasnothavingthesame,andaskedthecomplainantwhether
the complainant was having that much amount. That the
complainantalsosaid'no',andthereafter,Shringaresaidthatit
wouldbegivenonMonday.That,thecomplainantthentoldthe
ig
h
appellantthattheamountwouldbegivenonMonday.Shringare,
however,doesnotspeakofanycommitmentmadebyhimtogive
theamountonMonday.Shringaresimplysaysthattheappellant
demandedtheremainingamountfromthecomplainanttowhich
ba
y
thecomplainantsaidthatitwouldbegivenonMonday.
46
Thesevariationsbythemselvesmightnothavebeen
om
uponexposingtheillegalpracticesgoingonintheHighCourtand
was,therefore,likelytobeoveranxiousandfillinthedetailsof
thehappeningsaswouldsupportthetheorypropoundedbyhim.
Secondly,appreciation ofevidenceintrapcaseshastobedone
somewhat differently from other cases where 'that the
offence is likely to take place', is not previously
36/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
knowntothewitnessesorthevictim.Intrapcases,everythingis
rt
C
ou
ig
h
sequencethereofcarefully.Whenthewitnessesareobservingthe
happeningscarefully,soastobeabletogiveevidenceofwhatwas
ba
y
happening,thevariationsintheirtestimonywouldbemuchmore
significantthaninothercaseswherethewitnessesarenotacting
accordingtoapreplan.Thevariationswhichmightbejustifiably
om
ignoredasnotverymaterialorsignificantinothercases,maynot
soeasilybeignoredintrapcases.
47
37/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
theconversationthattookplaceon8/10/2010hadbeenrecorded,
rt
andtheallegeddemandmadebytheappellantwasverifiedonthe
C
ou
basisofsuchrecording.Accordingtotheprosecution,theDigital
VoiceRecorderwasplayed,atranscriptoftheconversationthat
had taken place was made, and a record thereof was also got
madeinaC.D. Thetranscriptsoftheconversationfindplacein
ig
h
ba
y
Surprisingly,therecordofeitheroftheseconversationswasnot
tenderedinevidenceatall.Inspiteoftherebeingarecordofthe
conversation which would corroborate the version of the
om
complainantandofthepanchregardingthe allegeddemandof
bribemadebytheappellant,theconversationwasnotplayedover
38/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
Officerintheirrespectivecrossexaminationsthatthereexistedno
rt
suchrecord. That,inspiteofsuchdirectchallengegivenbythe
C
ou
defencetotheveryexistenceofsuchrecordedconversations,the
relevant record was not produced, makes it all the more
surprising. When the recordofthe conversation wasavailable,
thatitshouldnotbeproducedbeforetheCourtduringevidence,
ig
h
leadstoaninferencethatthesaidrecord,ifproduced,wouldnot
havebeenfavourabletotheprosecution.
Inthelightofthefactthatthecomplainanthadlaida
48
fishingtrapwhichhasbeenfrownedupon,timeandagain,bythe
ba
y
SuperiorCourts;thatthetestimonyofthe complainantandthat
ofthepanchaboutthehappeningsintheeveningof8/10/2010;
donotmatchregardingsomeparticulars;andthattherecordof
om
39/67
Tilak
Sincethedemandofillegalgratificationhasnotbeen
rt
49
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
50
ig
h
unsatisfactory.
Thecomplainanthasstatedaboutthehappeningson
Bureauatabout10.00a.m.Accordingtohim,thepanchaswere
alreadypresentthere. Afterspeakingaboutthehappeningsthat
ba
y
tookplacethere,theinstructionsgiventohimandthepanchas
etc,henarrateswhattookplaceafterheandShringarecameto
the High Court. The complainant and Shringare proceeded
om
towardsthefirstfloornearC.R.No.27whowerebeingfollowedby
theteamoftheACBOfficersfromsomedistance.Accordingtothe
complainant,whenheandShringarereachedinfrontofC.R.No.27,
theappellantwaspresent,anddiscussionstookplacebetweenhim
andtheappellant.Surprisingly,accordingtothecomplainant,the
appellantinformedhimthathismatterhadbeenplacedbeforethe
Hon'ble Judge a fact which had already been informed by the
appellanttothe complainanton8/10/2010itself,andwhichhad
40/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
complainant,Shringarewasagainintroducedasthebrotherofthe
C
ou
applicantVaishaliwhichisalsoratherunusual.Itis,atthattime,
the appellant made a demand of the remaining amount of
Rs.500/.
WhatShringaresaysishowever,different.Shringare
ig
h
51
ba
y
theACBofficepriorto10.00a.m,andthattheymetACPShinde
(PW 3) when the complainant was also present. Regarding the
happeningsafterreachingtheHighCourtbuilding,Shringaresays
om
41/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
statesthattheappellantbygesture
(thatisbyrubbinghisthumb
rt
overhisindexfinger)demandedthebribeamount. Thus,apart
C
ou
ig
h
Atthattime,accusedtoldmethatmy
work has been done by him and he
demanded
amount
of
Rs.500/.
remaining
Thiscannotbeconstruedasademandbygestureasspokenabout
ba
y
byShringare.
52
om
ShringarearrivedatC.R.No.27,isalsoquitesignificant,because
theevidencedoesnotshowthatanyplaceortimewasfixedfor
42/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
Shringaretotheeffectthattheappellantwasnotpresentwhen
C
ou
theyreachednearC.R.No.27particularlybecauseadmittedly,the
appellantwasalsocarryingaregisterwithhimwhenhecamein
contactwiththecomplainantandShringare.Ittherefore,appears
thatthecomplainanthastriedtosuppressthefactthatactuallyit
ig
h
washewhowaslookingfortheappellant.Thecomplainantcould
haveattendedthematterinC.R.No.6andcouldhaveleftwithout
53
comingacrosstheappellant.
Apartfromthesevariations,whichthemselvesmight
ba
y
om
canbegatheredfromtherecordofthepanchnama(Exhibit18)is
thattheappellantacceptedthetaintedamountbyhisrighthand,
43/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
theappellantthenshiftedthesaidamounttohisrighthand,and
rt
kept the same in his right side pant pocket. When he was
C
ou
confrontedwiththerelevantportioninthepanchnama,hesaid
that it was 'partly correct, and partly incorrect'. According to
Shindealso,theappellantacceptedthebribeamountbyhisleft
hand,thentransferredthesameinhisrighthandandthenkeptit
ig
h
intherightsidepantpocket.Whenhowever,itwaspointedoutto
him that the panchnama did not speak so, and spoke of the
acceptanceoftheamountbyrighthand,andkeepingthesamein
therightsidepantpocket,heclaimedthatitwas'aninadvertent
mistake'. He had to admit in the crossexamination that an
ba
y
identical'inadvertentmistake'hadtakenplacealsointhe
supplementarystatementofthecomplainantthatwasrecordedin
om
thecourseofinvestigation.
54
werenoticed onboththehandsoftheappellant,theregister,his
mobile telephone and the right side pocket of his pant when
checked under ultravioletrays. Thepossibilityofthewitnesses
having changedtheir version to explain the traces of Anthracin
powder onboththehandsoftheappellant,cannotberuledout,
particularlybecauseithasbeenthedefenceoftheappellantthat
44/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
55
rt
whichheresistedbybothhishands.
Thedoubtinthatregardismagnifiedbecauseofthe
seriousinfirmitiesintheevidenceofthe complainantregarding
theactualacceptanceofbribebytheappellant.Asaforesaid,the
ig
h
complainantinitiallysaidthattheappellantacceptedthetainted
amountbyhisrighthand,andthenkeptitinhisleftsidepant
pocket. The complainant then voluntarily stated before the
ba
y
reproducinghere:
Court,asisreflectedinthenotemadebytheCourtwhichisworth
om
Thataleftypersonwillnotbeabletounderstandthedifference
between right and left, and that he would not be able to
distinguishbetweenrighthandandlefthand,isdifficulttodigest.
The same is not supported by any scientific data or research.
Anyway, the complainant then said that he did not remember
45/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
preciselywhethertheamountwasacceptedbytheappellantbyhis
rt
lefthandorrighthand,andwhetherithadbeenkeptbyhimin
C
ou
therightpocketorleftpocket.Inhisfurtherexaminationinchief,
when he was asked about the recording of his supplementary
statement on 14/10/2010, he abruptly stated before the Court
abouthis'confusedstateofthemind',about bywhichhand the
ig
h
taintedamounthadbeenacceptedbytheappellant.Thelearned
Special Judge has made a note in that regard which is worth
reproducinghere:
Atthisstagewitnessnarratedthatas
he is performing his all acts by left
ba
y
om
46/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
thispoint.Thesupplementarystatement
rt
Thisisindeedshocking.Inthefirstplace,theviewofthelearned
ig
h
SpecialJudgethatsincethewitnessislefty,thatsortofconfusion
couldbethere,isbaselesswithoutanyscientificdataorresearch.
Further,allowingawitnesstoreadhissupplementarystatement
recordedbythepoliceinthecourseofinvestigation,forrefreshing
hismemory,isinexpressviolationoftheprovisionsofsection162
ba
y
oftheCode.Apartfromthis,therewasnoquestionof'refreshing
memory',asmemorycanberefreshedonlyinthecircumstances
mentionedinsection159oftheEvidenceAct,andtherewasno
om
thepolicehadbeenfulfilled. Thisisapartfromtheexpressbar
created by section 162 of the Code, which would override the
provisionsofsection159oftheEvidenceAct.ThelearnedSpecial
Judge,thereafter,recordedtheevidenceofthecomplainantasto
the happenings, whereupon the complainant stated that the
appellantwasholdingoneregisterinhislefthand,hekeptthe
47/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
saidregisterinhisrightarmpit,thenacceptedthesaidamountby
rt
hislefthand,andtransferredthesameinhisrighthand,andthen
C
ou
byhisrighthand,keptthesaidamountinhisrightpantpocket.
However,surprisingly,thisversion,whichheadvancedsupposedly
after refreshing his memory on reading his supplementary
56
ig
h
statement,isnotinconsonancewithhissupplementarystatement.
Accordingtothecomplainant,assoonasthetainted
determinedsignaltotheraidingparty. Hehasspecificallyused
the word 'immediately' in describing the happening. However,
ba
y
om
wasviz.thatthecomplainantenquiredwiththeappellantasto
whethertheappellantwouldkeeptheamountofRs.1,000/for
himself,orwhetherhewouldbegivingittosomeotherpersons;
and that the appellant then gave the names of 2 3 persons,
includingthenameoftheSheristedar,andotherstaffmembers.
57
Theevidenceshowsthatafterthetaintedamountwas
handedovertotheappellant,appellantreceivedatelephonecall,
48/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
andwastalkingonhismobiletelephone.However,whetherthis
rt
C
ou
ig
h
mobiletelephoneandalsowiththe complainant,andthat,the
predetermined signal was given by the complainant after this
ba
y
conversationwasover.
58
om
Shringare. Thehappeningswereclearlybeingseenbythem. In
fact, the suggestion specifically given in the crossexamination
'that due to the 'L' shape of the corridor, the complainant and
Shringare were not visible to the raiding party', was denied by
Shinde. Hisevidenceevenotherwisemakesitclearthathehad
beenobservingthehappenings.Thus,whenhecouldseethatthe
49/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
C
ou
determinedsignaltobegivenbythecomplainant?Allthisshows
thattheevidencehasbeengiveninamechanicalmanner,andas
per the happenings that take place usually in trap cases, and
therefore,maynotbereflectingthe actual happenings. Atany
59
ig
h
rate,itistooartificial.
Thedefenceoftheappellant,asiscategoricallytaken
ba
y
hehadnotmettheappellanton8/10/2010atall. Accordingto
him,thatthecomplainanthadcometoC.R.No.27on7/10/2010,
buttheHon'bleJudgepresidingoverthatCourt,wasnotavailable
om
onthatdate. That,thecomplainantthenaskedtheappellantto
take the circulation praecipe, and give circulation when the
appellant told him that the Hon'ble Court did not give any
circulation,exceptinurgentmatters,andthatthematterwould
havetobementionedtotheCourt,andthen,dependingonthe
urgency,theCourtmaygrantorrefusecirculation. Accordingto
the appellant, complainant was still repeatedly insisting that
circulation should be given, and therefore, he told the
50/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
C
ou
threatenedthat'hewouldshowhim'. That,on11/10/2010,the
complainantmethimoutsideC.R.No.27whentheappellantwas
busyinhiswork. That,the complainantstoppedhimandtold
himthathehadgotthecirculation.That,hereceivedatelephone
ig
h
callinthemeantime,andwhilehewasspeakingonthephone,
suddenlythecomplainantwasnoticedbeingputtingsomethingin
theappellant'spocket.Theappellantresistedthesamebyhisboth
hands,andatthatmoment,twopersonsapprehendedhim. The
appellantcategoricallystatedthatheneverdemandedanymoney,
ba
y
om
60
Consideringthenatureoftheevidenceonrecord,the
prosecutioncasecannotbeheldtohavebeensatisfactorilyproved.
Thequestionisnotwhetherthedefenceoftheappellantistrue,
but whether upon considering the matters before it, the Court,
entertainsarationalandreasonabledoubtaboutthetruthofthe
prosecutioncase.Suchadoubtcanariseevenwhenthedefence
theorycannotbefullyaccepted.Inthebackgroundofthefactthat
thecomplainantwasonthelookoutfortrappingcorruptpublic
51/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
servants,(althoughwithallgoodintentions)thepossibilityofhis
61
C
ou
acceptanceofillegalgratification,cancertainlynotberuledout.
rt
havingtargetedtheappellanttoseewhetherhecouldbeluredinto
ig
h
showsthatitwastheappellantwhohadcarriedthepraecipegiven
bythecomplainanttotheBoarddepartment.Thisisbasednoton
thepersonalknowledgeofKondvilkar,butonthebasisofthefact
thatthenumberofthesaidapplicationi.e.'4301/10',aswrittenin
the circulation register, is in the handwriting of the appellant.
ba
y
Kondvilkarhassaidthatthefigure'4301'hasbeenwrittenbythe
appellant,andthishesaidfromhisacquaintancewiththewriting
oftheappellant.Kondvilkar,however,alsoadmittedthathewas
om
ofwhichordergrantingcirculationhadalreadybeenpassedon
7/10/2010 wasactuallytransmittedtotheBoardDepartment
fromthecirculationregistermaintainedinC.R.No.27,itdoesnot
indicatethattheappellanthaddemandedand/oracceptedabribe
inrespectofanofficialact.Inanycase,itdoesnotestablishthat
theprosecutionversionistrueandcorrect. Theinvestigationin
52/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
thematterhasbeenfarfromsatisfactory.TheInvestigatingOfficer
rt
evendidnotascertainwhetherthematter,thecirculationofwhich
C
ou
wassought,indeedpertainedtotheassignmentoftheHon'bleJudge
presidingoverC.R.No.27. Shindedidnotbothertoquestionthe
complainant as to how his praecipe had an endorsement dated
7/10/2010,andthat,inthatcase,whatwasthereasonforhimto
ig
h
ba
y
om
itself.
62
53/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
mysterious.Theappreciationofevidence,asdonebythelearned
parameters,experienceandlogic.
63
C
ou
ig
h
mention.Itisthatnopermissionforlayingatrapinthepremises
of this Court was obtained from the Hon'ble The Chief Justice.
This is indeed shocking. According to the Investigating Officer
ba
y
same to the P.A. of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, and further
instructedhimtoinformShindeimmediatelyonShinde'smobile
telephoneaboutthehandingoverofthesaidletter.Itisnobody's
om
case that any permission of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice was
obtainedbytheInvestigatingAgencybeforelayingthetrap,but
whethereventheintimationhadactuallybeentotheHon'blethe
ChiefJusticebeforelayingthetrap,isalsonotclear. Theonly
evidenceinthatregardisthatalettergivingintimationaddressed
to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice was handed over by a police
constable to the Personal Assistant of the Hon'ble The Chief
Justice.TheInvestigatingOfficerdidnotcontacttheRegistrarof
54/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
thisCourtoreventhePrincipalSecretaryortheSecretarytothe
rt
Hon'bleTheChiefJusticeforthatmatterandsuchcontactwas
C
ou
donebyaPoliceConstablebysimplydeliveringtheletter.Thisis
highlyobjectionable.
64
ig
h
ba
y
administrationofthatcourt,ortheDistrictcourt,ortheHighCourt,'
hasnotbeendealtwithdirectlyinanydecisionsoftheSupreme
court of India. The Manual of Instructions issued by the
om
onlythelayingofatrapinacourtroom,whilethecourtisin
session. The instructions in the Manual do not contemplate
raidingorlayingatrapinthepremisesoftheHighCourtwhichis
the highest court in the State and has been conferred with
constitutionaljurisdiction.Theinstructionsdealwiththelayingof
trapsinsubordinatecourtsandlaydownthatsuchtrapsshouldbe
55/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
laidaftergivinginformationtotheDistrictJudgeortothesenior
rt
mostJudicialOfficerinthestationabouttheproposedtrap,before
C
ou
ig
h
thiscase,theappellantwhowastobetrappedwasattachedtoan
Hon'bleJudgeofthisCourt. TheHon'bleJudgewasverymuch
presentintheCourtpremisesdischargingjudicialfunctions.The
staffattachedtoaJudgedischargesdutiesundertheinstructions
oftheJudge.IfPoliceOfficerswhosesubordinationtotheJudicial
ba
y
Officersevenofthelowestrungisevidentfromtheprovisions
oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,andwhofrequentlyvisitthe
Courtsasrepresentingapartyi.e.theState,oraswitnesses,are
om
56/67
Tilak
65
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
Normsofproprietywerenotfollowedinthiscaseby
rt
theInvestigatingAgency,asisevidentfromanumberoffactors.
C
ou
Theappellantwasapprehendedandtakenawayafterthetrapwas
saidtohave been successful withoutbotheringabout the effect
thereofontheworkingoftheCourt. Asamatterofcuriosity,I
haveexaminedtheletterwrittentotheHon'bletheChiefJustice,
ig
h
ba
y
om
correspondence.Theletterisimpolite.Itcurtlymentionsthat'in
respect of C.R.No.53/10 regarding the offences punishable under
57/67
Tilak
66
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
Inmyopinion,trapsinthepremisesoftheCourton
rt
workingdays,cannotbeorganizedwithoutthepermissionofthe
C
ou
JudgewhoisinchargeoftheadministrationofsuchCourt,orthe
Principal District Judge, or the HighCourt. The working of the
courtsoflawisdistinguishablefromtheofficesofthegovernment
departments.Inthecourtpremises,thereispresenceofadvocates
ig
h
andadvocates'clerks,who,quiteoftenlawfullyandforlawful
purposes receive amounts in cash from the litigants or their
representatives.Noreceiptsregardingsuchamountsarepassed
atleastnotatthattime.Themembersofthestaffofthecourt,are
quiteoftenrequiredtoassistthelitigantsortheadvocates,andto
ba
y
om
implicatingpublicservantsworkinginotherdepartments. Ifthe
policearepermittedtolaytrapswithoutsuchpermission,itcan
indeedposeaseriousthreattotheadministrationofjusticeand
independenceofjudiciary.Onthecontrary,noharmcanpossibly
besufferedbyseekingthepermissionoftheconcernedJudgeor
his superior, or the High Court. The impermissibility of laying
such traps was considered by the Allahabad High Court in
58/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
SurendraSahaiandOrs.Vs.StateofU.P8anditwasheldthat
rt
C
ou
absolutelyimproperinthiscaseonthepartoftheInvestigating
Agencytohavelaidatrapwithoutseekingapreviouspermission
oftheHon'bleTheChiefJustice.
ThelearnedSpecialJudgeappearstohavedeparted
ig
h
67
ba
y
om
fixed for recording of the evidence before the trial Court, the
complainant was absent. The learned Special Judge, therefore,
issuedabailablewarrantinthesumofRs.2,000/againsthimso
astoprocurehispresence. Theroznamaof24/6/2013reflects
thattheCourtfeltthenecessityofissuingabailablewarrant,as
81997Cr.L.J1670,
59/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
nextdate,thepanchwitnesshadbeencalled. Itappearsthatthe
C
ou
complainantflaredupbecauseoftheissuanceofabailablewarrant
againsthim. He madeanapplicationtothetrialCourtonthe
nextdatecastingaspersionsonthetrialCourtforanactionwhich
was perfectly in accordance with law. In this application
ig
h
sectorareas'.Itwouldbeappropriatetoreproducecertainpartsof
ba
y
thesaidapplication.
om
60/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
rt
redhandedbyacceptingillegalbribe
ig
h
ba
y
applicationhere:
Isaythatnowinviewoftheapproach
om
61/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
C
ou
rt
Fortheinterestofnaturaljustice
thecomplainantasabovepraysthat:
a)
TheBailableWarrantissuedbythis
ig
h
Hon'bleCourton24/06/2013againstthe
complainant may be stayed or in
alternatively may be cancelled if this
b)
Hon'bleCourtmaydeemfitproper.
Thatfortheinterestofjusticethe
ba
y
assignmentforhearingintheofficeof
Ld. Principal Judge, City Civil and
SessionsCourt,Gr.Bombay.
om
(Emphasissupplied)
68
62/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
C
ou
complainant
try
to
ig
h
(Emphasissupplied)
Later,onthesameday,thecomplainantsubmittedthathedidnot
ba
y
intend'toraisetheissues',andthathewantedtoproceedwiththe
matter. He,however,didnotgiveevidenceonthatdaythough
was present in the Court, and got the matter adjourned to
om
63/67
Tilak
69
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
Aperusaloftheimpugnedjudgmentshowsthatthe
rt
learnedSpecialJudge,inherjudgmentreferredtoanumberof
C
ou
decisionswhichwerenotcitedbyeitheroftheparties.Though,
principally,therecannotbeanyobjectiontorefertothejudgments
notcitedby,orrelieduponbypartiesprovidedopportunityis
giventothepartyaffectedbytheratioofthejudgmenttoreply
ig
h
theretointhepresentcase,thejudgmentsrelieduponbythe
learnedSpecialJudgearetotallyirrelevant. ThelearnedSpecial
Judge cited the case of R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay9 and
reproducedapassagefromthejudgmentinthesaidcasewhich
emphasizes the necessity of adopting a construction that would
ba
y
om
SpecialJudge. TheobservationsmadebytheirLordshipsofthe
Supreme Court, which the learned Special Judge went on to
reproduceintheimpugnedjudgment,wereinthecontextofthe
followingquestionwhichhadfallenfortheconsiderationoftheir
Lordshipsi.e.Whatistherelevantdatewithreferencetowhich
9
1984(2)SCC183,
64/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
publicservantforoffencesenumeratedinSection6ofthe1947
C
ou
Act(nowsection19ofthepresentP.C.Act)?Therewassimplyno
occasiontoreproducethesaidobservations.ThelearnedSpecial
ig
h
followingfromthejudgment.
Thereappearstobenosuchprecedent
ba
y
om
ispay.
Inthatcase,thequestionthathadarisenwaswhetherthewords
'astowhathadhappenedtohiswork'asutteredbytheaccused,
could be treated as evidence of demand of illegal gratification.
ThisCourtheldthatthedemandneednotbesocrudeandexpress
suchashaveyoubroughttheamount,giveittome,andthe
observationreproducedabove,weremadeinthatcontext.Inthis
65/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
70
C
ou
illegalgratificationornot.
ThelearnedSpecialJudgealsoreferredtofourmore
ig
h
certaingenerallegalprinciples/propositions.ThelearnedSpecial
Judgefeltthenecessityofreproducingtheobservationsmadeby
the Superior Courts and the Apex Court, as a justification for
ignoringthediscrepanciesandinfirmitiesintheevidence,andstill
convicting an accused 'as a means to eradicate corruption'.
ba
y
Noneofthoseobservationscanbeunderstoodtomean that'even
where there would be no satisfactory evidence, it is desirable to
convict a person, as corruption is admittedly on increase; and
om
wasactuallyguiltyoftheallegedoffences'. Suchanapproachwas
entirelyunjustifiedandcontrarytolaw.
71
Theappreciationofevidenceasdonebythelearned
66/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
hadnotbeensatisfactorilyproved. Theappellantwastherefore,
C
ou
rt
entitledtobeacquitted.
TheAppealisallowed.
73
Theimpugnedjudgmentandorderissetaside.
74
Theappellantisacquitted.
75
Hisbailbondsaredischarged.
76
Fine,ifpaid,berefundedtohim.
ig
h
72
om
ba
y
(ABHAYM.THIPSAY,J)
67/67
Tilak
APPEAL-1069-13(J).doc
rt
CERTIFICATE
C
ou
om
ba
y
ig
h
Judgment/Order.