State sought leave to appeal acquittal in corruption case involving demand for bribe. Court held evidence regarding telephone tapping and voice recording was irregular and contradictory, viewing acquittal as a possible view not warranting interference.
Application rejected. Leave to appeal refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Application No. 888 of 2012
The State of Maharashtra, Through Public Prosecutor, .. Applicant High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. (Original complainant)
versus
Mr. G.R. Ingole, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant - State.
Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate, for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 20TH MARCH 2014
P.C. :
for the applicant - State. Heard Mr. K.C. Sant, learned Counsel for the respondents - original accused.
(2)
It is the case of the prosecution that, the respondent no.1 had made demand, as above, for releasing Kawaljitsing. According to the case of the prosecution, one Shaikh Jakir, who is friend of the complainant, also contacted respondent no.1 and thereafter with Kawaljitsing, and told him about the alleged demand. As such, the complainant, as well as Kawaljitsing realized that, unless amount of Rs. 70,000/- is paid as a bribe to respondent no.1, Kawaljitsing will not be released. Accordingly, said amount was agreed to be accepted on 15-3-2006, at Ahmednagar, where Kawaljitsing was brought by respondent no.2, Latif Haidarkha Pathan, on the directions of respondent no.1.
(3)
From the record, it further reveals that on 15-3-2006, respondent no. 2 telephonically informed the complainant that, respondent no.1 has directed him to take Kawaljitsing to Ahmednagar. It also reveals that, Kawaljitsing was to be released on accepting amount of Rs. 70,000/-, and accordingly, on reaching the lodge, Kawaljitsing and respondent no.2 stayed overnight in Poonam Lodge. It further reveals that, as the complainant was not intending to make payment of bribe amount, on 16-3-2006, he lodged report with ACB authorities. The Investigating Officers accordingly prepared the pre-trap panchanama and had also given demonstration to the complainant and Panchas with respect to the effect of ultraviolet lamp and Anthracene powder which was applied to the currency notes, and trap came to be led at Poonam Lodge. It appears that, instructions were given to the complainant, by the investigating team, that the bribe amount having been applied with Anthracene powder valuing to Rs. 70,000/- should be kept by the complainant in his pocket and be paid to respondent no.2, Latif Pathan, only after confirmation about such payment from respondent no.1, Police Inspector, Dagadu Deshmukh, by telephone from the cellphone of Shaikh Jakir.
In that view of the matter, admittedly, it is the case of the prosecution that, at the time of acceptance of bribe amount, respondent no. 1 was not present.
(4)
cellphone. In the background of above case, when this material piece of evidence of the case of the prosecution, in respect of obtaining specimen voice sample of respondent no.1 is considered, it reveals from the evidence of Dr. Kamble, the Panch, that specimen of voice sample of respondent no.1 was obtained with the help of mobile handset of respondent no.2, by attaching the same to a computer and thereafter conversation was recorded on two blank cassettes. One cassette was used for recording dialogue no.1, and second cassette was used for recording dialogue no.2. Similarly, conversation in the mobile handset of respondent no.1, Latif Pathan, was recorded on "A" side of the cassette; and the voice sample of Panch Dr. Kamble, other Panch Bidave, and respondent no.1 P.I. Deshmukh, was recorded on "B" side of that cassette.
In view of the case of the prosecution, that the respondent no.1 was not present at the time of acceptance of bribe, above alleged conversation needs to be considered. Considering the overall evidence, it reveals that, recording of conversation in the mobile handset and transferring the conversation from mobile handset to computer, and from computer to the cassettes, is not at all in confirmity with the requirement of law since, admittedly, there was no sanction obtained from the competent authority for telephone tapping with reference to the guidelines issued by the Government of India vide notifications under the provisions of Section 7 of the Telegraph Act.
(5)
other, on the aspect of timing, which according to the case of the prosecution, was that respondent no.1 was insisting that the amount should reach to him within two hours. Under the circumstances, the evidence of above witnesses, having difference of 2 - 4 hours, is material to be noted and ultimately, there is a doubt in the evidence of these two witnesses.
refused.
bgp/CrA888
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge given the evidence regarding the bribe transaction.
Whether the collection of voice samples via mobile handset transfer complied with the requirements of law pertaining to telephone tapping under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act.
Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt given contradictions and doubts in the evidence.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Dagadu Sampatrao Deshmukh
Latif Haidarkha Pathan
P.N. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
