LexNAYANKUMAR SHIVAPPA WAGHMARE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015]2S.C.R.171 NAYANKUMAR SHIVAPPA WAGHMARE A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No .. 1352 of 2009) FEBRUARY 13, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(1 )(d) B rw s. 13(2), 20 - Public servant taking gratification for an official act - Complainant alleging that the appellant-public servant demanded and accepted bribe from him for clearing C his sister's pension papers and GPF dues - Trial court acquitting the accused from the charge of offence punishable ulss. 7 and 13(1)(d) rw s. 13(2) holding that the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt - However, High Court convicted and sentenced him ulss. 7, 13(1 )(d) rw s.13(2) - D Interference with - Held: Not called for - Apart from the suggestion made on behalf of the accused to the prosecution witnesses and the complainant, the accused admitted that three currency notes were recovered from his pocket by the E raiding party - After considering evidence on record in the light of s. 20, the trial court erred in law in giving benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 After going through the evidence on record it is not a case where two views are possible. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order reversing the order of acquittal recorded by the trial F court. [Para 12] [179-C-D] G 1.2 Considering the fact that the statement of the key witness PW-9 was recorded almost after three years of the incident, and the cross-examination was not done 171 H 172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A 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 B post retiral dues were being cleared by the accused, PW- 9 made a written complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau on the date when his sister's papers were being cleared. [Para 14] [179-F-H] c 1.3 The view of 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 CorruptiQn Act, 1988, is accepted. Apart from the suggestion made o on behalf of the accused to the PW-1, PW-3 and PW-9, it is clear that the accused admitted that three currency notes were recovered from his pocket by the raiding party. After considering evidence on record in the light of Section 20 of Act, the trial court did err in law in giving E benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused. Thus, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing the appellant u/ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of F the Act. [Paras 15,17,18] [180-A-B, D-E; 181-G-H; 182-E] Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash 1972 (2) SCR 765: (1972) 1 SCC 249 - relied on. Niranjan Hemchandra Sashitha/ and another v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (4) SCR 767: (2013) 4 SCC 642 - G referred to. H Case Law Reference 1972 (2) SCR 765 2013 (4) SCR 767 Relied on. Referred to. Para ~6 Para 17 NAYANKUMAR SHIVAPPAWAGHMARE 173 v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal A Appeal No. 1352 of 2009 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2009 of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 1997 B Sudhanshu S. Choudhari for the Appellant. Amol Chitale, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Charudatta Mahindrakar, A. Selvin Raja for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed againstjudgmentand order dated 6.2.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 1997 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bench at Aurangabad) whereby said Court has D · reversed the acquittal recorded by Special Judge, Osmanabad, in Special Case No. 3 of 1993 and convicted the present appellant Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare under Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to E rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, six months further rigorous imprisonment is directed to be served. 2. We heard learned counsel forthe parties and perused F the record. 3. According
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.