Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Imamoddin

Bombay HC8 Jan 2016APEAL/152/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed the appeal. The court held that the cross-examination showed the application was incomplete and the complainant's solitary statement regarding the trap was uncorroborated and thus cannot be relied upon.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; bail bonds cancelled.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Imamoddin — Corruption | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Cri. Appeal 152/2001 – Judgment

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2001

¶5

The State of Maharashtra.. APPELLANT

¶6

 (Ori. Complainant)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Imamoddin,
Age : 43 years, Occu.: Service,
Sr. Clerk, Asstt. Charity
Commissioner Office,
Latur.. RESPONDENT
(Ori. Accused)

¶9

Mr. N.T. Bhagat, A.P.P. for the appellant/State
Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for respondent/sole

¶10

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 08/01/2016

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

2.Aggrieved by the acquittal of the present

¶14

respondent by the learned Special Judge, Latur vide
judgment and order dated 29/12/2000 passed in Special
Case No. 1 of 1999 from the offences punishable under

¶15

section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, the State has preferred the

¶16

present appeal.

¶17

(2) Cri. Appeal 152/2001 – Judgment

¶18

3. The prosecution case, in nutshell is as under:-

¶19

.That PW3 – complainant Shivaji Madne wanted to
have registration of a society and, therefore, he had
filed necessary application with the Assistant Charity
Commissioner at Latur. The present respondent was the
Clerk dealing with the said file. The complainant
visited the office of respondent on 5-6 times for making
enquiry regarding the registration.

¶20

.On 28/09/1998, the respondent made demand of

¶21

Rs.300/- to process the file and get the registration.
The complainant told him that he would pay the money on
the next day i.e. on 29/09/1998. However, as he was not
willing to give any bribe, he filed complaint with the
Anti Corruption Bureau, Latur, on the basis of which the
investigation was started by Deputy Superintendent of
Police of Anti Corruption Bureau Mr. Dapkekar.

¶22

.The Investigating Officer collected two panch
witnesses including the shadow panch witness Mr. Doijad.
Demonstration of application of the anthracene powder
was shown to all of them. Anthracene powder was applied

¶23

(3) Cri. Appeal 152/2001 – Judgment

¶24

to the decoy money brought by the complainant.

¶25

Thereafter, the party proceeded to the Office of the
Assistant Charity Commissioner. Thereafter, panch
Doijad and the complainant went to the office of the
Assistant Charity Commissioner. It was instructed to
the complainant that he should pay the decoy money after
the demand is made by the respondent and, thereafter, he
should give the signal by touching his ear.

¶26

.Accordingly, the shadow panch witness and the
complainant entered the office. At that time, one of
his friend Sadashiv was also there. Respondent again
made a demand of the money and, thereafter, complainant

¶27

handed over the same and which was kept in the pocket by
the respondent. Thereafter, the necessary exercise of
examination of the hands and clothes of the complainant
and the respondent was carried, which confirmed the
above activities.

¶28

.In the circumstances, the Investigating Officer
carried further investigation, collected the sanction to
prosecute the respondent from his appointing authority
and filed the chargesheet.

¶29

(4) Cri. Appeal 152/2001 – Judgment

¶30

4.Before the learned Special Judge, Latur, in all
12 witnesses were examined. It was however gathered
that at the time of actual trap, in-fact, the respondent
had asked the shadow panch witness and the colleague of
the complainant to be away from them as some important
work was to be done. He has given these instructions
twice as they were following him. While both of them
were away and while the complainant and respondent were
under a staircase, the decoy money was handed over. In

¶31

the circumstances, the only material left was the
evidence of the complainant that earlier demand was made
by the respondent. Respondent's defence however was
that in-fact, the application itself was not complete.
One person's name was later-on inserted as one of the
member of the society and physical presence of the said
person was needed. Further, certain erasures were
there in the application, against which the initials
were required. The affidavit was also not verified.
Therefore, the respondent had asked for the compliance
of the same. The complainant was irritated and,
therefore, he filed a false complaint.

¶32

(5) Cri. Appeal 152/2001 – Judgment

¶33

5.During the cross-examination, the complainant

¶34

admitted insertion of a new name of a member in the
application after searching cross-examination. He also
admitted that no initials were put against the cross
made in the application. The affidavit also was
ultimately admitted to have been unverified.
Considering all these facts, the learned Special Judge
acquitted the respondent.

¶35

6.Learned A.P.P. submits that the decoy money in-
fact was found on the person of the respondent.
Therefore, the learned Special Judge ought to have
raised the presumption, as is available under section 20

¶36

of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further
submitted that the deposition of the complainant ought
to have been relied by the learned Special Judge.

¶37

7.On the other hand, Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar,
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
reasons forwarded by the learned Special Judge are based
on the material produced before him. The said view
cannot be called as unreasonable and, therefore, in the
present appeal against acquittal, no interference is

¶38

(6) Cri. Appeal 152/2001 – Judgment

¶39

warranted.

¶40

8.On the basis of this material, following points
arise for my determination :-

¶41

I) Whether the prosecution has proved that
on 28/09/1998, in the office of Assistant
CharityCommissioner,Latur,present
respondent has made a demand of Rs.300/- as
gratificationotherthanthelegal
remuneration, as a reward or motive for
issuing registration certificate to the
complainant and, thereafter, on 29/09/1998,
at about 12:45 pm, he again made the said
demand and accepted the said gratification ?

¶42

II) Whether the prosecution has further
proved that the present respondent obtained
pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal
means being a public servant ?

¶43

.My findings to both the points are in the

¶44

negative. The appeal is therefore dismissed for the
reasons to follow.

¶45

R E A S O N S

¶46

9.The cross-examination of the complainant would

¶47

show that the application submitted by him was

¶48

(7) Cri. Appeal 152/2001 – Judgment

¶49

incomplete. He admitted that the name of the additional

¶50

member was put later-on in the application and his
physical appearance was required in the office. The
corrections were made in the application but no initials

¶51

were put before the same. Further, the affidavit also
remained unverified. Since there is no corroboration to
the statement of the complainant regarding demand and
acceptance at the time of raid in view of the above
position that according to the prosecution, the demand
or acceptance was not made in presence of the shadow
panch witness, we have the solitary statement of the
complainant.

¶52

10.The complainant's statement however is
deficient to inspire any confidence for the above
reasons. There is every possibility that though the
complainant has visited the office of Assistant Charity
Commissioner on 5-6 times, the application remained
incomplete and no registration certificate could be
issued. Therefore, out of anger, he might have tried to
pressurize the respondent. In that view of the matter,
the solitary statement of the complainant cannot be
relied upon.

¶53

(8) Cri. Appeal 152/2001 – Judgment

¶54

11.The learned Special Judge has taken into
consideration all the material on record and has
forwarded his reasonable and probable view. In the
circumstances, the following order:-

¶55

12.Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail

¶56

bonds, if any, of the respondent shall stand cancelled.

¶57

arp/

The State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Imamoddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Imamoddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Baban Gadhave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Dattu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor S/O Guruling Waghnna Vs Anirudha S/O Lalasaheb Patil

Radhabai W/O Deepak Barde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravindra Radhakrishna Kakde Vs the State of Maha and Ors.

State of Maha Vs Shivaji Borude and Anr.