BALIRAM S/O IRRAPPA KAMBLE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 20-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 447 
... -+ 
BALIRAM S/O IRRAPPA KAMBLE 
A 
II. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Crl. Appeal No.1130 of 2001) 
NOVEMBER 20, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
,#- ·--t 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) 
rlw s. 13(2) - Demand of illegal· gratification - Complaint- Trap c 
arranged - Participation of two independent witness in the trap 
- Recovery of treated currency from the accused - Conviction 
by courts below -
On appeal, held: Prosecution has 
established the case of demand as well as acceptance of 
bribe money -
The Anthracene Powder Test gives D 
considerable support to the prosecution version. 
~ 
Appella.nt-a Minimum Wages Inspector (Agriculture) 
, ' 
,.,_ 
was alleged to have demanded illegal gratificati~n from 
PW-1 (Comp1ainant) for dropping action for not 
maintaining register with regard to seriice conditions of 
E 
his yearly servant. On 20.7.1989, since PW-1 had no 
money, he wa$ asked to come on 27.7.1989. On 27.7.1989, 
he made a complaint about the demand. A trap was 
arr~nged. In '~he trap, when the treated currency notes 
recovered from the poc~et of the appellant and his pocket 
F 
--r. 
and his· hanc~s were put to Anthracence Powder Test, it 
went against the appellant. 
Special Judge held that prosecution proved demand 
of bribe money, offer of tainted money by PW-1, 
acceptance of tainted money by the appellant and G 
-+ 
recovery of the tainted money. The appellant was 
convicted u/ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s. 13(2) of Prevention 
of Corra.tption Act, 1988. Hig·h Court upheld the 
447 
H 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A conviction. Hence, the· present appeal. 
Appellant contended that there was no demand of 
bribe, as the tainted money was. thrust on him; and that 
after the case against the compl.ainant was closed on 
; ,
8 
26.6.1989, there was no occasion for making any 
demand ... 
• 
< 
• 
' 
-
"·• 
~ .... 
~ 
J 
.... -
' 
.,.., 
., ! 
Dismissing the appeal, 'the· Court 
HELD: The evidence of the witnesses clearly 
establishes not only ttie demand, but also the'acceptance 
C of bribe money. The.Anthracene Powder test conducted 
l~nds consid~ra.ble' support,~~ the
0
p~~secuti~n version. 
_The making of demand of bribe money is established from 
the fa_cts_ th~t on ~0.7.1989, PV\1.-1 (complainant) had gone 
to tile office of appellant, who deman.ded Rs.100/- from 
D him. Since PW-1 had no mone.y with him o'n that day he 
promised to come later. Appellant asked PW-1 to maintahi 
the register and--·asked him to.come•on·.27.;i .. 1989. 
·Thereafter, PW-1 contacted Deputy SR (PW-11)·and told 
him about the demand.t The complaint was. recorded as 
E Exh.16;·Two independent witnesses were called from the 
Accounts ·Department of Zilla Parishad. They ,were 
apprised of the demand of ·bribe ... Trap was .thereafter 
arran·ged. The fact that in Exh.18 there is:an endorsement, 
·is ·a clear indication that the. case against PW-1 .. was to 
F continue, falsifies the stand of the .appellant. that no 
proceeding was continuing. [Paras 4 .and 6] [454-8-D; 
456-B] 
I • . 
. #' 
. ;. 
State Represented by Inspector of Police1 Pudukottai, 
T.N .. v. A Parthiban 2006-(11) SCC 473, :relied on.•~ 
11. 
G 
'l 
·• 
I~ 
~ 1' 
lo, 
• 
, , !". ' . t I ,t 
~ 
. Case Law Reference: 
. 
' 
J 
• ' -·Cf 
' ' t 
.. 
,.. 
J 
... 
,. • ~ 
· --' '200G'(11) sec 473 
· ·Relied on. 
·Para 5 .... 
1 
~ •. ;;"t'· 
·., 
.• 
1 
···-· 
.. r··,.,;f •• _,· 
..... ./ 
_. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
, H No. 1130 of 2001. 
~· 
+-
.... 
.t 
BALIRA.M S/O IRRAPPA KAMBLE v. STATE OF 
449 
.. 
MAHARASHTRA 
... --+ 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.2.2001 of the A 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench atAurangabad in 
Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1990. 
Arun R. Pednekar and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. 
'• 
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent. 
B 
"' 't 
. The .Judgment ofthe Court was dellvered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of tre Bombay High 
Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence c 
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). 
The learned Special Judge; Osmanabad, convicted the 
appellant and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one 
year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 
D 
2 .. Prosecution version as unfolded d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.