9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. In the present case, there was no question of giving benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused. In Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash [ 1971 (12) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT ], explaining the expression reasonable doubt , this Court has observed that It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so the law would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if not thwarting it altogether. In view of law laid down by this Court, as above, and after considering evidence on record in the light of Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, we hold that the trial court did err in law in giving benefit of reasonable doubt in the present case relating to corruption. Considering the rival submissions of learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and GPF papers were located, and the Appellant told PW-9 Anant Deshmukh (complainant) to obtain 'No Dues Certificate' from Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhoom. He also disclosed the complainant that there was missing entry in respect of year 1987-88 in the GPF statement. On this, the complainant brought letter of her sister stating that she was ready to accept the amount of GPF excluding the missing credits of the year 1987-88. 'No Dues Certificate' from the Block Development Officer was also obtained and submitted to the office of the Zilla Parishad. When again contacted, the Appellant told Anant Deshmukh that GPF clearance would require further 2-3 months, but if the complainant pays Rs. 1,000/- to him, it can be done within 8-10 days. Reluctantly, Anant Deshmukh gave Rs. 200/- to the Appellant, who asked him to contact after five-six days with rest of the amount. On 30.1.1993, complainant met the Appellant Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare (accused) at 10.45 a.m. The Appellant told him that the work has progressed, and papers are lying for signatures of the authority concerned, and asked him to come at 2.30-3.00 p.m. with balance amount. The complaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Report was lodged. After investigation, all the relevant papers were submitted before the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad for sanction for prosecution of the Appellant, and the same was obtained against the accused and charge-sheet was submitted in respect of offence punishable Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. It appears that after hearing the parties, the trial court framed charge against Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare in respect of offences punishable Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 15.3.1996, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. 5. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Uttam Bhutekar (panch witness), PW-2 Bhimrao (Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad), PW-3 Sahebrao Wanve (Panch witness), PW-4 Riyaz, PW-5 Bharat, PW-6 Nagnath (all three officials of Zilla Parishad), PW-7 Rajiv (Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad), PW-8 Baburao (Chief Accountant), PW-9 Anant Deshmukh (complainant), PW-10 Mirabai (pensioner whose GPF papers were processed), PW-11 Ramdas (police Head Constable) and PW-12, P.I. Nandkumar Gada ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter from his sister regarding her readiness to accept the amount of GPF without contribution of the year 1987-88. PW-9 further told that Rs. 1,000/- were demanded by the accused (Appellant) for clearance of amount of GPF. He also stated that he gave Rs. 200/- to the accused, and for rest of the sum it was agreed that the same would be paid after a week. The witness further narrated that on 30.1.1993 when he again went to the office of Zilla Parishad, he was asked to come again around 3.00 p.m. with balance Rs. 800/-, and he was further told that Rs. 1000/- would be separately required for clearance of pension papers which would take another two to three months. PW-9 Anant Deshmukh further stated that, on this, he went to Anti Corruption Bureau and made a complaint. He further told that he came along with panch witnesses and vigilance team, and trap was laid. He further told that he gave Rs. 300/- to the accused after having tea in the nearby tea stall on which trap party apprehended and recovered amount from the accused. However, at the end of the cross-examination this witness stated that the accused did not demand the amount. 9. The statement of PW-9 Anant Deshmukh, as record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y witness PW-9 Anant Deshmukh was recorded almost after three years of the incident, and the cross-examination was not done on the same day when the examination-in-chief was recorded, there was every reason to believe that the witness had lost the interest and won over by the accused. There is nothing on record as to why if the amount was not demanded and the papers relating to post retiral dues were being cleared by the accused, PW-9 Anant Deshmukh made a written complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau on the date when his sister's papers were being cleared. 15. In this connection, we agree with the High Court that the trial court while appreciating the prosecution evidence completely ignored the presumption required to be taken under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 provides that where, in any trial of an offence punishable Under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le scepticism . It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so the law would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if not thwarting it altogether. 17. In view of law laid down by this Court, as above, and after considering evidence on record in the light of Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, we hold that the trial court did err in law in giving benefit of reasonable doubt in the present case relating to corruption. In the case of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashithal and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642, this Court has discussed gravity of the corruption cases in following words: 26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
