VISHNU NAGNATH DESHMUKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 08-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
VISHNU NAGNATH DESHMUKH 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
NOVEMBER 8, 2000 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G .. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 : Sections 5(J)(d) and 5(2). 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 161. 
Prevention of Corruption-Illegal gratification-Conviction for-
Sentencing-Appellant-Accused-Acceptance of illega( gratification by-
Finding of Trial Judge-Upheld by High Court-Conviction-Imprisonment 
ofsix months-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held no interference was 
D called for with fact finding-In view of smallness of amount involved sentence 
imposed on the accused reduced to the period already undergone by him. 
E 
F 
Criminal trial-Accused-Sentence-Punishment-Purpose of 
E.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, [1974) 1 SCR 222, relied on. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136 
Appeal-Examination of evidence by Supreme Court-Permissibility 
of-Held Supreme Court does not examine the evidence for itself except when 
the interest of justice so requires. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1127 
of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.93 of the Bombay High Court 
in Crl. A. No. 799 of 1986. 
G 
V.N. Ganpule and K. Sarada Devi (A.C.) for the Appellant. 
H 
I.G. Shah, S.S. Shinde and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant in this appeal by grant of special leave challenges the 
462 
VISHNU NAGNATH DESHMUKH v. ST A TE 
463 
judgment and order dated 13 .4.1993 passed by the learned single Judge of the A 
Bombay High Court upholding on appeal the appellant's conviction under 
section 5(2) read with section 5(i)( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 
-• 
and under section 161 lPC. The Special Judge, Solapur, in Case No. 4/1986 
-.... 
· convicted the appellant with rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine 
of Rs. I 00 and in default of payment of fine the appellant to undergo further B 
rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 
The subject-matter of the appeal pertains to illegal gratification of Rs. 
10. The learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal took us in great 
detail to the evidence tendered and contended that question of there being 
any corruption involved does not arise since the Tahsildar himself has allowed C 
the appellant to retain a book for collection of money for soldiers welfare 
fund. Payment of Rs. 10 thus stands admitted. The dispute being whereas the 
appellant is contending that the same was collected at the instance of the 
Tahsildar on account of soldiers welfare fund, the prosecution harped upon 
illegal gratification. The record depicts that PW2 Yunus went to the office of 
the Tahsi\dar on 8.1.1986 and gave an application for issuance of necessary D 
succession certificate and it is the accused who is said to have informed 
Yunus (PW2) that the application would be sent for inquiry but one can get 
a certificate only upon payment of certificate fees and in that case fees was 
prescribed at Rs. IO and it is on this score that a complaint was lodged with 
the Anti-Corruption Department and the usual formalities regarding these E 
matters were duly complied with. Before we proceed further in the matter we 
ought to appreciate that this Court does not examine the evidence for itself 
in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution except when the interest of 
justice so requires. In the instant case the facts have been gone in detail by 
both the Special Judge as also by the learned single Judge of the High Court 
in appeal. The question of any intervention on the factual situation at this F 
stage of the proceedings is not warranted. On the factual aspect also and 
having due regard to the evidence, we also cannot come as a matter of fact 
to a different conclusion than what has been arrived at, except however on 
the question of sentence. The learned advocate appearing in support of the 
appeal in the alternative submitted that by reason of the smailness of the G 
amount involved and by reason of the factum that the appellant being in jail 
for a period of four months, the question of further punishment would not 
arise in the factual context and submitted that the appellant has enough 
sufferings already by reason of the long lapse of time during the pendency 
of the proceedings and interest of justice would be sub-served in having the 
punishment for the period already undergone. In support of the alternative H · 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP

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