# [1984] 1 S.C.R. 621

- **Citation:** [1984] 1 S.C.R. 621
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984-10-27
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1984-1-s-c-r-621-8498
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

r
~
\
~·.
621
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
NARSINGRAO GANGARAM PIMPLE
· October 27, 1984
Prevention of Corruption Act~S. 5(1) (a) and 5(2) and •· 161. of 1-P.C:-
. Accused prosecuted/or demdndlng and accepting Illegal gratification..:CTrial Court
convicted ·and sentenced the accused~High Court a,cquitted the accused-Whether
and when Supreme Court should interfere.
What ;hould be judicial .approaeh to
ev.ldence of witnesses in a trap ca4e. _ · ... ·
,
A
B
c
. .
. The respondent,~· Sub~ln~pe~to~ of Police, \Vas charged under s. 161 ,of
. ·ihe Indian Penal Code and also under. SS. 5(1) (a) and 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. .The prosecution case was that one Rego had filed a complaint
D
·. ~ains·t his tenant Walawalker, that_ ·he:. was running a distillary. ·· On. a narch·
of Walawalker's house made by P.W .. 8 Gangur~e, a police officer subordinate.
to. the respondent~ no trace Of distillary was found. The respondent", told
. RcgC that sijl.ce.ihe complaiJlt made by him was prima_facie fou_nd to: be fillse
he waS liable to:be prosecuted under-the Bomba·y Prohibition Act. The n~spon ..
·dent demanded ·froln Rege Rs. 2000 on·9-4-1972 as aratification· for not taking
E
_- a11y·action again~t--him and rcpe8ted· the ·same demand on 13-4:.1972. R,ege Was
directed to see the· respondent nearabout thC poliCe-.statiOn at a .place calICd
padavi. Rege out of despe~ation .. corit3.cted PW ll, M.S. ~haCnkar and.after
narrating his· story requested hirll to iay a trap in.order to catch the ~ccuscd,
R.ege also gave 20 hun(fred-rupee notes _to PW 11-which _he proposed ·,to hand~
over to the accused-at the .. time of' the trap .. The raiding party. reached padavi ·
, r.Ound iibout 7.c:>O P.M. and ·waited -for tho; respondent to come .. The respondent
F
appeared on tQe_scene-
~t about 8.30 P.M. and o~ seeing Reie. repeated hiS
demand fo·r the 3rd time, Rege g·aye the mOney to tho re~pOndent. nits ·was
watched by P.W. 11, P.W. 3 and soino others pf the raiding pacy. Thereafter
· Khamkar, PW 11, went into the room and tried fo hold the hands of the rcspon·
4ent who had inad_e an attempt tb take-out the n~te~ from ·the right sidC pOcket, -
of hii pant but desi>fte this tbe re!pondon~.succeeded in throwing out t\le notes:
As the moi:iey tlius passed'had,already' been treated With 8.ntbracbie powder, the
- .G
handS and the fiSht side pocket of th~ Rccused were put before the ultra violet
lamp and were found ~o be·staine'd wi~h-tbe said powder;
.
The trial court convicted and aentenced the respondent. under a:·5(1)(ay ·
and 5(2) of tho Prevention of Corruption Act. In appeal tho . High Court set
.aside the conviction aria serit(lnces. imposed upon the respondent. HCnce this
appeal J>y the State. The State argued that tliere was .. no real and meaningful
<liscu•.sion of the important evidence produced by tbe prosecution in .•upport or
H
B
c
D
E
F
,
G
H
SUPREMB COURT REPORTS ·
(1984j I s.c.R.
frs ca~e and.the mgh,CoUft had m~fely .Darrited-the !'Yiden~ without exaffiinina
Hs intrinsic inerit and had sidetrac.ked an issue which was not at all germane for
deciding this case. the respondent argued that the High Court having acquitted
the accused. this Court should very rclrely interfere with- the judgment of the
Hiah ·court and sh_otild do so only in cases where there ·wa·s a grave error of law
ot serious miscarriage of justice and that' too when the accused faced a trial for ·
several years and had been reinstated and prompted as an Inspector.
Allowing tho appeal,
•
HELD : The iudiment of the High Court suffers from serious and
s~bstanti81 errors of Jaw-:3.nd Jegai infirmities. This is-one.of those farestof rare
cases where this:Court would be failing'. in jts duty if it did not interfere .with the·
order of acquittal and set aside the judgment.of the High Court. ·on a full and
complete discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case ·the Court·. is· of
the opiniOn tbaf thC Charges against the· respondent-accused have· .. been .clca~JY
proved and

## Text

_Characters 0–39,872 of 66,471. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39872 for what follows._

r
~
\
~·.
621
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
NARSINGRAO GANGARAM PIMPLE
· October 27, 1984
Prevention of Corruption Act~S. 5(1) (a) and 5(2) and •· 161. of 1-P.C:-
. Accused prosecuted/or demdndlng and accepting Illegal gratification..:CTrial Court
convicted ·and sentenced the accused~High Court a,cquitted the accused-Whether
and when Supreme Court should interfere.
What ;hould be judicial .approaeh to
ev.ldence of witnesses in a trap ca4e. _ · ... ·
,
A
B
c
. .
. The respondent,~· Sub~ln~pe~to~ of Police, \Vas charged under s. 161 ,of
. ·ihe Indian Penal Code and also under. SS. 5(1) (a) and 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. .The prosecution case was that one Rego had filed a complaint
D
·. ~ains·t his tenant Walawalker, that_ ·he:. was running a distillary. ·· On. a narch·
of Walawalker's house made by P.W .. 8 Gangur~e, a police officer subordinate.
to. the respondent~ no trace Of distillary was found. The respondent", told
. RcgC that sijl.ce.ihe complaiJlt made by him was prima_facie fou_nd to: be fillse
he waS liable to:be prosecuted under-the Bomba·y Prohibition Act. The n~spon ..
·dent demanded ·froln Rege Rs. 2000 on·9-4-1972 as aratification· for not taking
E
_- a11y·action again~t--him and rcpe8ted· the ·same demand on 13-4:.1972. R,ege Was
directed to see the· respondent nearabout thC poliCe-.statiOn at a .place calICd
padavi. Rege out of despe~ation .. corit3.cted PW ll, M.S. ~haCnkar and.after
narrating his· story requested hirll to iay a trap in.order to catch the ~ccuscd,
R.ege also gave 20 hun(fred-rupee notes _to PW 11-which _he proposed ·,to hand~
over to the accused-at the .. time of' the trap .. The raiding party. reached padavi ·
, r.Ound iibout 7.c:>O P.M. and ·waited -for tho; respondent to come .. The respondent
F
appeared on tQe_scene-
~t about 8.30 P.M. and o~ seeing Reie. repeated hiS
demand fo·r the 3rd time, Rege g·aye the mOney to tho re~pOndent. nits ·was
watched by P.W. 11, P.W. 3 and soino others pf the raiding pacy. Thereafter
· Khamkar, PW 11, went into the room and tried fo hold the hands of the rcspon·
4ent who had inad_e an attempt tb take-out the n~te~ from ·the right sidC pOcket, -
of hii pant but desi>fte this tbe re!pondon~.succeeded in throwing out t\le notes:
As the moi:iey tlius passed'had,already' been treated With 8.ntbracbie powder, the
- .G
handS and the fiSht side pocket of th~ Rccused were put before the ultra violet
lamp and were found ~o be·staine'd wi~h-tbe said powder;
.
The trial court convicted and aentenced the respondent. under a:·5(1)(ay ·
and 5(2) of tho Prevention of Corruption Act. In appeal tho . High Court set
.aside the conviction aria serit(lnces. imposed upon the respondent. HCnce this
appeal J>y the State. The State argued that tliere was .. no real and meaningful
<liscu•.sion of the important evidence produced by tbe prosecution in .•upport or
H
B
c
D
E
F
,
G
H
SUPREMB COURT REPORTS ·
(1984j I s.c.R.
frs ca~e and.the mgh,CoUft had m~fely .Darrited-the !'Yiden~ without exaffiinina
Hs intrinsic inerit and had sidetrac.ked an issue which was not at all germane for
deciding this case. the respondent argued that the High Court having acquitted
the accused. this Court should very rclrely interfere with- the judgment of the
Hiah ·court and sh_otild do so only in cases where there ·wa·s a grave error of law
ot serious miscarriage of justice and that' too when the accused faced a trial for ·
several years and had been reinstated and prompted as an Inspector.
Allowing tho appeal,
•
HELD : The iudiment of the High Court suffers from serious and
s~bstanti81 errors of Jaw-:3.nd Jegai infirmities. This is-one.of those farestof rare
cases where this:Court would be failing'. in jts duty if it did not interfere .with the·
order of acquittal and set aside the judgment.of the High Court. ·on a full and
complete discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case ·the Court·. is· of
the opiniOn tbaf thC Charges against the· respondent-accused have· .. been .clca~JY
proved and his acquittal by the High Court was wrong both on law ·and, on
facts.· [644 E,FJ
.The resporident took .ao ingeq.ious though improbable defence that Rege
attempted to thrust the notes intO his pocket in .the prcsencC of Khamkar but he
pve·a push and.the notes fell ori the ground; ·thereby he tried to explain the
stains of.the.anthracine pow_der on.- his hands. While P.utting forward. this
·defence th~ respondent seems to have.forgotten that the notes bad. been taKen
out of his pocket which was also .smeared with the· powder 8.nd it is ·impo:ssible to
-'a~cept that an ordinary person like Regi;-wouJd have the ~ourage and audacity
to forcibly thrust as many as 20 notes of rupees 100 denomi'n3tion each into the
pockCt Of the resporident when he knew that the respoilden.t was a police officer·
armed with a revolver. It is difficult to believe that Rege Would take such a·
grave risk an.d do so in tbe presence of Khani.kar and others. The testimony of·.
two _indepcnd_ent witnesses and one clerk hClwever reveals a different ·story which ·
fulJy corroborates the prosecution version.- (63.o D-FJ
"'
.
The High Court seems to have devoted ·a major part of it$ judgmen~ · tQ
the varicius case diaries· produced before the court in order to establish that the
ae:(:used was n6t-pres\:nt at ihe police statio~ either on the
9th~. or -on the 13th
April 1972 when the first .two demands were made. According .to the High
. Court this gave a suffici~nt alibi to _the respondent fro~ which "it could be safety
inferred that if he was not present at the J?ohcc statiori, there.could :be' no ocassion for. hiin to make any demand for bribe from the cotDplainant. Assuming
· that.the'recit~l.s .in.the said case diaries are adinissible (though there Is serious
doubt about, it) yet it dOes not at all exclude the presence· of the respondent at
the Aoibarnaih police station_ on the 9th and 13th· because iiC" Was not ~ent
away to a pla'ce situated far from Bombay but .was in some other police station
within a radius of a few miles only. Even if he Was deputed to. some other
place he was in possession of a jeCp ·and he could visit the An1barnath police
station for a few minutes on any of th'ese da(es.· Ii is well settled .that a.plea of
· alibi must be Pra:ved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility'
of the presence Of the person concerned at the place of oc(furrcnce. Such,
h~wevcr, is .no_t the case here. Therefofe,. the discussion of the ca~e diaries,
which enpled a . substantial portfon of the Hiah Court judgment was really •n
omefst lo futility. [632 D-GJ
·
?
\
f
•
..
MAHAl\ASHTRA V. N.G, PIMPLE
623
We have 8:one-tbrOugh the ~~tire evidence. led by the· prosecution and~ in
its opinion, the prosecuti_on cas~ was Fully proved because it has been supported
by at least two indep~nderi.t witnesses, v.iz., PW s 3 and 11 arid -to a great extent
~~~~m
.
This Court is' unable to be convinced by ~iny reason why the evidence
of FWs 3 and ·11 should be discarded parficularly. wheil neither of these wit-"
· ·nesSes bore any grudge or animus against the respondent nor was any such
.suggestion· made to any or" these witnesses. Certain mino~ contrad_ictions or
inconsistencies have bee·n Pointed out in the statements qf PWs 1 and 3 but-on.
close examination they de) not appear to be material and, therefore, not suffi·
cient to throw_ out the prosecu.tion-case. ·pws 1 and 3 have fully supported.the
prosecution case. [636 E-H]
.
The High C~urt was greatIY i~prCssed ·by what it Calls a seriOus lacuna
.in the prosecution case~that although both Rege ind Khamkar, along with"the
raidii:ig party, came to the Municipal. octroi Naka the first thing ·which Khamkar ciid was to ask Rege to stand outside (padavi)" where. the [aiding party was
also present. The lfigh coUrt further held thafitfrom the evidence of Rege it
appears that after ihe rai~ing party came.there. Kharnkar' caught hold,ofihe ·
hands of the accused and took pim inside the r6orn. The High Court has
come to this finding .on a complete mjsreading ·of ~he evidence of PWs 1. and ll
· ·overlo.cikillg and ignoring_ the logic<il sequerice of events starting from the morning of 14th April up to the time when the money pas.sed. [637D-638C]
"
Th.i: High Court seems to have been under the· impression that PW 1 was
not_sμbjected to the ultia Violet lamp light test which· in fact was done and.here
-the I-Iigh Court again con1mitted .an .error of record. {638 DJ
The High Cou1l did. _not make· any attempt to scari and appreciate the
· intdnsic merits of the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 as corroborated by PW 7, which
. by itselfwi_ls sufficient to prove the prosecution case.regarding the acceptance
, and recovery of money, [638H-639A]
The High Court failed to consider" a·s to What motive could Rege have fo .
'faJsely implicate tl)t a_ccused when he had not conducted the search nor Was he·
_, ~ircctl~ Connecte~.with the cha~geshee·t which WaS going to-be_fiJed against hiμi.
·Jndecd, the dominant question which the court should have put to itself-would
l1a\'e-been ·a:s to why a cOmplaint under s. 89 of thEi Prohibition. Act ¥.'as not
filed i:igainSt Rege even though the chargeSheet was ready. The ·evidence of
G8.ftgurcl!', PW 8 shows that he wets ready to file the chargesheet but the.accused
directed him not to do so until the receipt of further instructions from hiin.
_ .Thai b~ing_ th~ position w_by did. the ac'?used asked Gangu;de to del~y the filing
of the c,hargcs'heet ? This qucstioii has neither befn answered by· thC High Court
nor by the accused. It Seems that tl~e approach made by the High Court_ lo- ·
war.ds the prosecution has not been independent but one with a· .tainted eye and .
aμ. innate. prejudice .. Jn .fact, the High COurt appears tci have been sO lnuch
prejudiced aga.inst the J)roseCution that it magnified ev~ry ffiinor · detail or
omission to falsify o·r throw even a shadow of doubt on the prosecution evidence. This is -the very ante-thesis of a e<;>rrect judicial approa-;h-~o the eviden.;;e ·
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G •
H
•
A
B
c
·E
·F
•
G
II
•
<
. .
624
•
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19S4) 1 S.C.R.
of witnesses in a-ti'ap ca~.' Indeed, if_such a harsh touchstOnc is prescribed ·tQ
Prove a case-it Will be impossfble' for the prosecutioD to est3blish any case· at
•!I. (639 D-F; 640H-641BJ
.
The Hi~h Court reiected vi.ta! evideneeof PWs I, 3, 8 and II on frivolous
grounds and it did not· make any attempt -to di cuss 'their evidence on itltrinsic
merits and the superfici~l manner. i,; which it has dealt with the evidence and
circllnistances in order io demolish the prosecution caSe is Wholly unacceptable·
and leaves.much to be desired. (644 B-CJ
·
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuR1soic'r10N : Criminal Appeal No. 127
of 1977
Appeal by Special Jeave from the Judgment and . Order dated
the 22nd/23rd ian., 1976 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. I 02 of !974.
.
•
•
O.P. Rana, and M. N.Shr~ff, for the Appe1/oirt.
· · S.B.Bhasme,
0 Rom Jethmolani, and V.N; Ganpule, for .the.
·.Respondent.
•
~
The Judgment of the Court was. delivered by
FAZAt ALI,' .i. This appeal by special· leave is directe\I against a
judgment dated 22/i3rd,January 1976 of (he <Bombay High Court
. acquitting the respondent of the charges framed against· him under
s.161 Indian Pert.al Code and also under s.5(1) (a) and. 5(2) of. the·
Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred ·to as · the 'Act').
The trial court ·after very detailed consideration of the- evidence held
that the charges under the aforesaid sections had· been fully proved
and the respondent-accused was accordingly sentenced to u11dergo ·
two years rigorous imprisonment under. s.5(1) (a) ·and 5(2). of the
Act and a fine of Rs. 2000 was also imposed and in . default of pay~
ment of fine further six month R.I. was · imposed. The High Court
. in appeal disagreed . with the cone] usion of the trial court allowed the
·appeal oft.he accused, and set aside· the convictiOn and sentences
imposed on him.
We have heard Mr. Jethmalani, ·.counsel for 'the respondent-·
accused and· Mr. Rana for the appellant and . have gone through
the_,entire evidence and the Judgment of the High Court..
'
"
~··
\ >
•
.•.
MAHARASHTRA v. N.G. PIMPLE (Fazal Ali, J.)
625
This seems to. be a very strange ·case where. truth has been SO ·
much polluted that falsehood has ·taken.its 'place and truth buried
under deep debris. This.has been. possible by a clever polic.e officer.
like the respondent, who tried to kill two bird.s with one stone, being
. _)-. seized of an opportu
0nity_ which .. came to him through a . complaint
. filed by Pandharinath Shivram Rege ·(hereinafter. :_referred to as
'Rege')·against his tehant.Govind· Shantaran Wal!Lwalkar (for short,
to be ·referred to as 'Walawalkar') to the effect that. the complaint
suspec~ed tha.t his tenant, Walawalkar, was running· a distillary .. On
a report by the police that on· ,searching the' premises no . trace of
1
•. distillary was found, presumably an infere,1ce could be drawn that
the said complaint was false, though ·the said complaint was yet to
be tested in a court of law in a pr0seution under s.89 of the Bombay
Prohibition Act (for facillity, to bi\ referred to as 'Prohibition Act');
The· police report -obviously made Rege .extermely" nervous for· fear
of impending prosecution. Rege, as his background would show,
was not an ordinary man in the street but a highly educated person
who had got a M.Sc. degree and retired as a s_enio.r chemist before
. settling down in his own -house called Prapanch, Therefore,, being
a· respectabie person be ~attirally get perturbed by the adverse police
report.: It was here that 'the acctised, having got an opportunity of
his life through his dice, by an- ingenious device invit.ed the complain- '
ant to offer him bribe by.putting him in ·a tight corner on the one·
. hand; and in an inextricable _dilemma on the other.
-.
•
-
•
'
#
.
.
-
.
.
To begin with, the respondent-accused sensing the nervousness
Rege staried by" showing huinan sympathy that no harm would come -
'to hitri.
Finding that he had cough! Rege in the net, he· took undue
J!:dvantage of Rege's helplessness and frustration and played his game
by gradually making an offer to extricate him (Rege) if he could pay
him a suni of ·Rs,. 2,000. .The demand was repeated and poor Rege
found himself b~ween the d'evil and the 'deep sea. These· repeated · .
'1
demands of the respondent drove Rege into desperation which took
him to PW 11, M.S. Khamkar, to whom he narrated his ·st<ify _and -
. requested him to lay a trap in order to catch the accused.
Here; before narrating the facts, we might:tnention a few words
· about the nature of the approach made by. the High Court. Far from
probing into the truth and heart of the ·matter ·the learned Judge ·
, appears to have readily accepted the visibly ··attractive argument of
the counsel for the Respondent. that by foisting a false charge of ·
bribery on the r~sp'ondent the coml'lainant displayed a cliabolica! ·
•
A
c
•
D
E
F
H
B
c
•
D
E.
F
G
H
..
. 626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1984] I s.c.R.
character in rendering the step taken by the police against Walawalkar nugatory and stal.led any further action.
This argument was ·
reiterated before us by the counsel with all the force at his command
but on.closer examination, in our opinion, thl: argument is completely wit~out substance. The learned Judge seems to have over- •·\~
looked two importjnt.circumstances which· completely negative the
reasoning given by" him. Jn the first place, assuming that the aUe-
.l
gation of bribery made by the complainant against the respondent .
was false, how could it stop any action on· the complainL which was
being looked after and investigated by PW 8 Gangurde who categori- :
cally states that he had prephred the chargesheet (Ex.66) ·on 11.(72
and sought permission from dte accused to take Rege to the court
in order to present !he chargesheet but the accused directec! him not
not to preceed with the chargesheet and' asked him not to file t!te .
. "
same untilfurther orders from him: Therefore, it was. the accused
who had stalled the prosecution · of Rege.
In this connection·
Gangurde $lated as follows :
.
·
· ·
"On 13.4. 72 I again approached the
accused and
asked him whether the charge-sheet against ·. Rege should .
be· forwarded to the court. . He 'told me that there
was
no hurry about it and thai I should keep those papers
with me .. He further told me that I should keep
those
papers till.he instructed:".
•
It maythus be noticed that by the time Gangrude wanted to
file the charge;heet the first demand for bribery had already been
made on 9.4.72 and the second dcmad was yet .to be made on )3.4~72
which clearly shows that there was some "method in the madness'.'
on the part of .the respondent in directing his subordinate to withhold submission of the. chargesheet u~til. further instruction from
Ji
hi~ or there .was some hidden. oecn:it which compefled the iiccused to.
give.such a direction. And.by a process of elimination it would ~
appear that the only consideration which inspired the accused to
take such.an' extraordinary step was to wait until he was able to get
the money demanded so that after receiving the money he would get
the matter dropped. Thi! inforence is fully supported by the state-
·)
. ment of PW l who has stated. in categorical terms that on orie
occasion he was assured by ·the accused that he would sec that Rege :
would be acquitted and even on the 14th . when the . demand' .wa& •
'-
firially m'ade the accused had assured him in the following words:
•
•
·. MAHARASHTRA V, N.G. P1MrLE (Faia/A/i, J.) .
627
"You should not worry, I am arranging for the with•·
drawal of that case, arid that I should not harbour any
worry on that count.
I said _that he should see to it."
)---r.
. There would therefore be no other earthly reason· why the
·respondent should have kept the chargesheet pending even · though
it was ready.
Furthermore, the. possibility that the· allegations made
'\ I
' by Rege against. his tenant may have been true cannot be rea§onably '
excluded because the complainant categorically states that . he used
·to get smell of liquor and_ ·see lot _of people·. going· and coming into.
Walawalkar's house. It may be that Walawalkar having got sense
of the matter, as he lived i,n the .same place, removed all the traces_
of the distillary before the police could· reach the premises. Aftet
'an the compfaint filed by Walawalkar against Rege had yet to stand
the test of judicial scrutiny and remained in the domain of only an
allegation ~n the basis of which a charge sheei was to be submitted
to the .Court.· Thi<· inference
is fully fortified,
reinforced and
rendered ve;y probable by the subsequent conduct of Wala.walkar
who knowing full well that the complaint filed against him by Rege
·was false and baseless which seriously and adversely harmed his
reputation
and
the
police
contemplated
to
take
action
.under section 89 of the Prohibition Act at his instqnce agains(Rege,
he kept quiet and made no aitempt.whatsoever to pursue his complaint or take proceeding nnder section 182 I.P.C. or for that matter
file a snit for malicious prosecution: against Rege.
In view of such
·a meaningful silence on the part of Walawalkar a fair possibility of
the allegation made by Rege against Walawalkar may have been
afterall true, could not reas.onably be · excluded. This, therefore,
·completely knocks the _bottom out _of the reasoning adopted by the
Judge and the argunient pui forward by Counsel.
Further, it is not understandable why the accused after being
infermed that the charge-sheet of Rege was ready to be submitted,
> directed Gangurde, Ws subordinate. officer, to let it lie over until
further instructions. TWs is, therefore, something more than meet's the
eye· and provides an intrinsic, nay, a conclus_ive proof of the f~ctum .
of the demand of bribe from Rege ai:td infereniially suggests that
· _the accused wished to wait until his demand was complied with by
Rege in which case the proceeding against Rege might be dropped.
This is fully corroborrated by the evidence of Rege w(lo states that
after the two demands on 9th & 13th April 1972, .even on 14.4'72
,the accused ass_urefl Rege that he would be acquitted. · The fact,·
'.A.
c
D
E
F
G
l;I
A
•
...
628'
SUPREME COuRT REPORTS
·'
[t984) 1 s.c.I\.,
however, remains that the ch~rge shtet to be submitted against Rege
•
was put in a cold storage, vanished into . thin air· and was never
revived thereafter, which still remains ari unsolved m'ystery. · Jn these
circumstances to dub the complainant as a person of a. dubious ·or ·
a diabqliCal character as :he. H!gh Cqu:t has clone .i;as most.' urifor- .... ~ \,.
tunate and .amounted to,mfitctmg·on.h1m,"an unkmd cut mdeed.".
B •
~·.-
D
E
F
G
.H
The story of this dextrous drama staged by the respondent ~ith
complete adroitness and ·alacrity begins wit)1 . a .complaint filed by
Rege on the 25th of March 1972 at police station Ambarnath at 8.30
am. under the Prohibition Act. ·. Before the complaint was reduced
.. in Writing Rege had narrated the facts to . the . respondent. who had .
asked liim to give a written complaint. On tlie basis of the complaint,
PW 8, Gangurde carri.ed out a search after.· prepadng a pancbnama ·
and re.ported that. nothing was found in the house cif Walawalkar
connecting him with the offence under s'.89 of the Prohibition Act.
On 4.4.72 Rege was sent for and in pursuance of the call from the
police station )le'reached'there by about 8;30 a,in. where Gangurde
was present but the accused was not there. Being fotally unaware.
·of the i.ngenious plan of .the responent, :·Gangurde told Rege that.a
case. under the Prohibition Act had been registered agai.nst hi'll ·and
be was. to be prosecuted; arrested and couid be released ori bail· on · ·
furnishing a surety.
Rege. se'nt for PW 4,dr.V.'B. Sardar, to. stand
. surety for him so that he could be released on bail. ·Before Dr. Sardar
.
.
'
.
·came to the police station,.the accused, who had reached the police
station by that time, impressed upon Rege that .since he had given a
false complaint against Walawalkarwho was a. respectable man, a
case had been registered against him. This seems to be the first' step
·taken the accu~ed for spreading the het in order to catch his prey.
Oil 9.4.72 while Rege bad gone to play tennis .he. was
· · .summoned to the police station where he, ac.companied by. Sukh- .4
tankilr, reached at about 8.00 p.m. and saw the accused there. The
. accus~d then took Rege on the roaq and told hi~ that if he could
· pay Rs• 2o00 to him . h~ would see that he (Rege) was acquitted. It
might be noticed here that PW 8 Gangurde has clearly .stated that he
. had made a search of Walawalkar's house on 25.3.72 and recorded
his statement on 28.3.72 on which date a case was regist.cred. against
· Rege under the oral orders cif the respondent .. The witness further
. goes on to state that he had already pFepared the· chargesheet against
Rege and even after the ·complai_nant was sent for to come to.the
MAliARA;HTR,< i>. N.o. PiMPLE (Fazal All, J.)
629 ·.
police· station and released on ·bail no chargesheet was
subm.itted.
Gangurde states that the charge sheet was prepared on 1.1.4. 72 but as ·
he wanted a clearance from. the respondent for submitting the
"
... charge-sheet h~ was told th.at there. was no hurry and that the.·
...
~
. _/
papers . should be kept with hini · till further . instructi.;ms. No
)
}-
). ..
explanation has been· giveri by the respondent .for staying .the sub-
. missipn of tbe chargesh~et after it was fully ready in a case whic)l
ought tci have been put up before. the court immediately. This important factor intrinsically supports the case of Rege that the respondent
Was holding up the chargesheet in order to make his drama complete -.
by obtaining the.money demanded from him as illegal gratification:
It is obvious that the respondent wanted to keep Rege within bis
. control and allow the sword of damoclesto hang over him until the .
. deal was completely finalised.
, focidentally, we might mention that this .circums.tance completely . demolishes the argulDe~t of t:Ciunsel for the respondent that
having filed a false complaint and having made a false representation
io Kham.kar that the accused was damanding bribe ·and that a trap
should be laid, t.he complainant succeded in sl!elving the cbargesheet
from .being filed. In vjew of the aforesaid admited circumstances,"
the argument cannot be
accept~d even for a: moment. In 'fact, t'his ·
argument ~as made the sheet anchor of the defence of the re~pondent, .
·hut we feel that so splendidly was the defence set up that even the
·experienced judicial .eye of th~ learned High Court · Judge was. unable
.
- -
.
.
to pierce or. penetrate, through the smokescreen . thrown by tl!e
respondent (to concear his guilt) to . discover the bright star or the
truth concealed behind the darkness of the· smoke.
The trial court
was wise enough to see through the game and refused to. be d11ped by
. the visibly charming and beautifol picture of falsehood and convicted
hi.m of the charges as indicated above.
·
Jn fact, one of the fundamental arguments- that have been
•·
B
c
D
F
adva11ced before us by Mr. Rani, counsel for the State, is that there
Gis no.real_ and .Illeaninegful discussion of the impoitant evidence
produced by the prosecution in support of its. case and the High .
Court . has . merely narrated the evidence without examining. its
intrinsic merit and has · sidetracked an issue which was ·not at all
·germane for deciding this case -an aspect with which we shall deal
H
with a little later, ·.
·
'
A ..
B
c
D
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT llBPOR TS
· · 1i984l 1 s.c.lt
Coming back now. to the sequence of events the prosecution case-
. was that after the first demand was made on 9.4. 72 and repeated on
· 13.4.72, Rege was directed to see the respondent ilearabout the police
station at a place -called padavi. Rege then approaced PW .1.1
. Khamkar ·for laying a trap, and gave twenty I 00 rupee notes to _PW 11
which he proposed to hand0ver to the accused at .the time of the trap.
The raiding party reached padavi. round about 7.00 p.m. and waited for
the respondent to come who appeared on the scene at about 8.30 p.m.
and on seeing Rege. repeated his demand for the 3rd time and after the
money had been given to the accused, PW 11, ·PW 3 and some ot!ters
of the raiding party watched the same.
Thereafter Khamkar went
into the room and tried to hold the hands of the respondent who had
made .an attempt to. take out the notes "from the right side pocket of
his pant but despite this the respondent succeded iri throwing oμt
the notes. As the moriey thus passed had already been treated with ·
anthracine powder, the. hands and the right' side pocket of the
accused were put before the ultraviolet lamp and were found to be
stained with the said powder .. The respondent took an ingenious
though improbable defene .that Rege attempted to thrust the notes
into his pocket in the presence of Khamkar btit he gave a push and
• the notes fell on the ground; thereby be· tried to explain the stains of."
the anthracine powder·on his hands. While putting forward this
defence the respondent seems to have forgotten that the. notes had
been taken out ofhis pocket which was also sme~red with the powder
and it is impossible to accept that .. ati ordinary person like Rege
would bave the courage and audacity to forcibly thrust as many as
twenty notes of Rs. JOO de.nomination each into the · pocket of the
respondent when he knew that the respondent was a police officer
armed with a revolver., . It is difficult to believe that Rege would take
such a grave risk and do so in the presence of Khamkar and others •.
. The testimony of two independent witnesses and one clerk. however.·
reveals a different story ·which fully corroborates· the prosecution
version .
. .
.
.
PW-3 who was in no way connected with the police .and.was
drawn from the zila parishad where he was working 11s a stati.stical
officer had no axe to grind against the respondent so as to give false
e.vidence to implicate him, As. previously. arranged,· Rant, PW 3,
witnessed the entire inCident from a distance of a few feet as he was
. ·sta.nding very near to the place where the van was
parked. This
witness fully supports the prosecution case and states that Rege took
out· the wad of notes from his . pocket and the accused took those
>··
>
' .
;
)
MAllARASllTRA v. N.G. Pl!APtiE (Fazal Ali, J.)
63i
. '
notes in his righlihand and put them in his.right hand side pqcket of
his pant. Immediately thereafter Rege made the·· settled signal by
· tl!king out his spectacles and trying to wipe the saine. On seeing.
this signal Khamkar and other members of the party a,rrived·
there.
Kbamkar then . disclosed his identity as an . Inspector of the. Anti
Corruption Branch and a panchnama (Ex.51) was immediately. made ..
We have gone through .his entire cross-examination and we are
. unable to find any material discrepancy to ·'discredit bis evidence.
The only circumstance which seenis to have been taken against him
is that about two years before the_ occurrence he was an accused in·a
maramari case which was ultimately compromised. Merely on this
account he could not be "held to be. an unreliable or ii.competent·
witness.
Shorn of minor contradictions or omissons, the evidence of ·
this witness appears to contain a tinge.· of truth. Even PW-7, K.A.
Patil, of the octoroi Department who was present _in the room,has
testified that the aceused had taken out the notes from his
0
pocket
·and then tried to throw them dowti, In this connection
his
statement may be extracted thus : .
·
"It also happen that ·accused took out the currency
.. notes from bis right side P.ant pocket and threw it down.
It is not true that I made the first. statement on account
of pressure from the accused."
"
It is true that the statement was made after the public prosecutor
was permitted to cross-examine the witness · although he was not
· declared _hostile but that does not in apy way belie or weaken his
evidence.
He was present at the Naka · where the money was paid .
and was,therefore, fully competent to depose to what he.had actually
seen. There is nothing to show from his cross-examination that
he made no such statement in the earlier stages of investigation when
· ke was examined by the Invesiigating · Officer.
Apart from this there is the evidence of PW IJ, M.S. Khamkar
an Inspector of police in the. Anti-corruption
Department. Ther; .
is no evidence to show that he bore. any animus against the respodent.
He was_subjected to a very searching cross-examination _but nothing.
of any vital importance seems tO have be.en elicited from him so as
to throw doubt ~n bis testimony .. In the sessions court some
Insinuations were made in the course of cross-examination
but in.
· · the High Court and before this (;burt · learned defence counsel
expressly abandoned the insinuations.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G·
.H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
..
632
SUPiU!Mil ·.COtiRT REPORTS
t1984J 1 s.c.ll .
· T)l.e frontal attack 111,ade by th.e learned counsel for the respon· ·
dent against the prosecution was tliat all the members .of the raiding
party were subje~ted to the anthracine powder test in the glow · .0f
the bulb.which must have taken about 10·15 minutes and yet ~e
·star witness, viz., the complainant, did not say ·anything about this
<jemoμstrati6n which was held by PW II, Khamkar. ·That circums- ·
tance even if it be true is not, lri our opinion, sufficient to throw the
prosecution out of court,· So far as Rege is concerned. his test had
alfeady been taken earlier and therefore· he was not intere.sted in a
secpnd test which. was ta((en. to exclude (he· possibility of inter
pofation. llence, ·if he did not see or remember the demonstraiion at'
the Naka tl\at by itself Will not be· a circumstance to discredit his
entire testimony particularly when it has been .corroborated by two
independent witnesses; viz., PW 3, 11 and also by PW 7 ...
The High .court seems to have devoted a · major part of its
judgment to the various case• diaries produced before the court in .
order to esfablish that the accused was not present af the
polic~
station either on the 9th or on the 13th ofAp.ril 1972 when the firsi
two demands wer~ made. According to the .fligh Court this gave a
sufficient alibi to the respondent from, which it . could ·be safely.
inferred that if he was not present at the police station, there• could
be no.occasion for hirn to make any dell!and for bribe from the
complainant. Assuming that the recitals in the said ·case diaries are.·
admissible (though.we have seri~us doubts about it) yet it does.not
.at all exclude the presence of· the ·respondent .at ihe Ambarna(h
police station on Hie 9th.and 13th because be was not sent away to a
place·situated far from Bombay but was in some either police station
within a radius of a few ·miles only. Even if he was deputed to
.. some other place he was in possession of a jeep ·and he could visit .
the Ainbarnath police .station for a few· minutes on · any of· these·
dates. It is )Veil .settled that a . plea of alibi. m.ust be. proved with· ..
absolute. certainty so as to completely. exciude the possibility· of the
·presence of the person ·concerned· at the place of occurrence. Such;
however, iS not the case here. Therefore, the .discussion of the case
diaries, which engaged a substantial portion of the High Court
judgment was really an exercise in futility.
· This bri.ngs us to certai~ ·.circumstances, evidence and reasons
· relied on by the High Court to reject' the prosecution case and reverse
the order of conviction pass¢ by the tfial court.
·
·~.
. '
.
,';----p
;) .
•
•
. . MAHAll.ASHtRA \>. N.G. PIMPLE (Pazal Ali,J.)
693
. .
.
Before approaching this problem, e~en at the risk of repetition,
we might give a brief resume of the interesting drama starting from
t\le demand of illegal gratification · by the accused and endin& ·with
the passing of money and his subsequent arrest. The prosecution
case is that Rege had filed a complaint" against his: tenant, Walawalkar, and the same was prima facie .found to be·false because on
a search of Walawalkar'.s house no trace of distillary was found.
According to the prosecution, this furnished the· ilil.f\lediate. motive
and the golden opportunity for the respondent.to demand money as•.
illegal gratification from the complainant.
While the investigation
of the complaint was· pending the respondent on .9.4:72 mada a
demand of Rs. 2o00 from. Rege to shelve the case. This . demand
was repeated.on 13.4.72 and ultimately the complai~ant · had agreed
to pay him· R:s. 2000. as bribe. Ii was settled that .the respondent was.
,10 receive the money at Ainbarirnth police station nearabout 7 .30
.
p iii. on 14.4:72.
A
B
c
Being fed up with the persistent demands of· the accused .and
.I)
the impending prosecution unders. 89 of the Prohibition. Act the
complainant solicited the help of PW .11; Kbamkar and narrated rhe ·
entire incident to him After hearing tile story of the complainant,
Khamkar rang up Desbmukh, DSP, Anti corruption Branch., Bombay,
. but as he was out he hi·mself recorded the complaint of Rege. which
E
is Ex. 44 and sent a letter to District llealth Officer to depute two
. persons from his office for the purpose of actfo.g as paiiches. Kham-
. kar then. prepared an app.lication, addressed it· to :the concerned
authorities for obtaining sanction to . investi.gate the matter .. 'file
.. sanction was accorded after the Magistrate ha<I interrogated · Rege,
PW .l l, Khamkar then returned to his· office and found two .persons,
.. F
viz. Raut (PW3) and Karve, :who had been. sentto him from the
· Zila Parishad office .. He introduced Rege to the panches and asked
him to narrate his story which he. did.· Thereafter search of Rege
was taken in the presence ofthe panches and. besides' many othe.r
articles; which are not . necessary .to be ·detailed, a sum · of Rs. 2000
G
was found from the p~rson .of Rege and the numbers of the notes ·
were noted in the panchnama.
PW l l then handed over . th~ notes
.to constable Wagti an"d directed him to hold demonstration as to
how· those notes would appear in the. usual light.· and in
ultr~violet
. lamp light after ihe notes are treated with anthracin•; powder. . The
H
constable performed .the said process ·and thereafter · Rege was
directed to 'put those notes in the left pocket of his pant. . The bottle·
containing the anthracitie powder was then sealed in order to obliterate
A
B
c
.D
F
•
StJPl\EMil COURT REPORTS
(1984) 1 S.c:i.:
the traces of the said powder. PW I I as also . the panch witnesses
were then subjected _to the same process before proceeding to .the
Ambarnath octroi Naka near the poiice station to which the accused ·
was attac\led as sub-inspector. It was also settled that while Ra.ut .
wimld constantly remain with Rege to witness the talk and the
passing of the money, the complainant would take out his spectacles
and make a show'to wipe out his glasses which would. amount to a
signal ,for the raiding .party that .the money had been accepted by the
· acicused and they may at once reach the spot.. The panchnama con- ·
tairiing all these facts was completed and signed by the . panches and
cduntersigncd by the .witnesses. This seems to be the fi,rst and ·the
· preparatory stage to · lay the trap.
The rai_ding party was directed to take a train bound foi Ambarnath and _get down there at about 6.35 p.m
becanse the· complainant had informed Khanikar that the accused was .not likely to.
come to 'the police station before 7.00 p.m. The second stage. consists of the arrival' of the ra.iding party near the said police station
and.waiting there upto 7.00 p.m: At
that time Rege a'lld
Rauf
proceeded towards Tilak Road and after passing through the railway
crossing kept waiting at'a convenient place at a· distance of 40•50
· ft. from the gate. PW 11, Khamkar and other members · of the
raiding party waited at the inner side . of the railway corner gate near
the railway track. -PW ! I further directed two constables of the
raiding party to wait near the Canara restaura~t which was just in
front of the octroi Naka towards _the east.
" • The· third stage starts with the arrival of. the police van from
·the side of Wimco Road, carryi'ng the accused, which halted near
the octroi Naka al about 8.40 p.m. There· were no constables in·the
van and the only occupants appeared to be the accused himSelf anil
the driver of ihe van. After getting down from the van the accused
came to the 1\ aka and sat on the chair in the padavi (veralldah). ·
G
. . The last stage_ of th~ show staffs when Rege and , Raut, who
was introduced·to the accused as one of his relations, approached
• the accused who asked them to sit on the two stools on. the right
side of the cbair occupied by the. accused. He funher requested
).I_
Raut to find out the whereabouts of the driver of the van;. obviously·
H
because he did not want that Rant should· hear any talk between
· . Rege and himself.· Raut thereafter went towards the van but stood
i
. in. an angular fashion towards the accused and
Rege ·so that he
•
•
).
- - .,J
MAHARASHTRA v. N.G. PIMPLE;(Faza/ All.' J.)
,l)3:5
.
could see what was happening there.
The accused inade a gesture
by· putting his right palm and twisting his finger, indicating thereby
that he was demanding the· money.· Thereupon Rege took out·tbe
currency.notes from the left pocket of bis pan( and .gave them to
the accused, who after taking-the amount inserted lhe same in the
fight side pocket of bis pant. Immediately thereafter.
~ege gave.
the prearranged signal by · taking .out bis spectacles ahd wiping the
same with his handkerchief. On seeing tbe'signal, PW II, pancbes
and.