SAYYED SHABIRALLI HAFIZALI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 04-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 615 
SAYYED SHABIRALLI HAFIZALI 
v 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
Criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 2005 
MAY 04, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND ASOK 
KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-ss. 4 and 5(1)(d) rlw 
5(2) - Application made to State Electricity Board office for 
installation and connection of electric motor - Pursuant to C 
deposit of necessary charges, certain materials were required 
to be taken from the Electricity Board office and for that purpose 
a gate pass was required by the complainant - Appellant, a 
Sub-Engineer in the Electricity Board office, allegedly 
demanded illegal gratification for issuing such gate pass -
D 
Bribe allegedly received at the shop of complainant -
Conviction of appellant, by trial court - Upheld by High Court 
- Justification of - Held: Qn facts, justified - Gratification 
received was not trivial - The evidence on record clearly 
established the accusations. 
E 
State of Assam v. Krishna Rao and Ors. AIR (1973) SC 
·2a - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
AIR (1973) SC 28 
referred to 
Para 7 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1053 of 2005 
F 
From the Judgement and Order dated 07.02.2005 of the G 
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in 
Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1992 
U.B. Dubey (for Kuldip Singh), for the Appellant. 
615 
H 
616 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
Aniruddha P. Mayee (NP), for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
B Single of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench upholding 
the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under 
Section 5(1 )(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of 
.,. 
Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). The learned Special 
Judge, Ahmednagar, had found the accused-appellant guilty and 
C convicted him as aforenoted and to suffer imprisonment for one 
year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
The complainant Mhatardeo Dagadu Dahale, resident of 
D Dule (Chandgaon) was running a tailoring shop by name 
'Surekha Ladies Tailors' at Pathardi. The land bearing S.No.92/ 
1 situated at village Dule (Chandgaon) was owned by 
complainant's father. He wanted to install electric pump set on 
the well situated in the said land. For that purpose, he had made 
E an application to the office of Maharashtra State Electricity 
Board (in short 'M.S.E.B.'), Pathardi. However, the M.S.E.B. 
did not take any cognizance of the said application. 
Complainant's father, therefore, submitted another application 
in the year 1980. Thereafter survey of the land and in particular 
F the place where the electric motor was to be installed was carried 
out and the complainant was asked to carryout the preliminary 
requirements and to submit the test report. Accordingly, the 
complainant had submitted the test report on 12.11.1986. As 
tbe complainant's father was of old age, complainant was in 
G fact attending all the work in connection with the agriculture 
operations and allied work. As per the Rules of the M.S.E.B., it 
was necessary for the complainant to deposit certain charges. 
for receiving the material required for the installation and 
connection of the electric motor. The complainant, therefore, 
H deposited Rs.610/- in A.D.C.C. Bank. Ahmednagar on 
... 
SAYYED SHABIRALLI HAFIZALI V. 
617 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT J] 
26.12.1984. In spite of such compliance on the part of the 
A 
complainant and his father, the M.S.E.B. had not provided the 
necessary material and connection. For getting the material 
released from the M.S.E.B. store, it was necessary to issue 
gate pass. For that purpose, the complainant had met the 
accused, who was then working as Sub-Engineer in the office 
B 
of M.S.E.B., Rural Sub Division, Pathardi and the accused had 
told him that he would be sending one,Channe, Wireman . 
. However, nobody turned up till 19.11.1986. Hence, the 
complainant contracted the accused on that day. However, even 
on that day, the gate pass was not issued in favour of the c 
complainant. On 26.11.1986, the accused went to the shop of 
the complainant and told him that he would issue the gate pass, 
but for that purpose, the complainant will have to pay Rs.100/-
to the accused. The complainant told him that he had not that 
much amount to pay at that tim

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