Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1215 OF 2004

MAHESH SUBASHCHANDRA SINDAGI      .... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF GOA & ANR.              ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1.  Appellant  at  the  relevant  time  was  posted  as  Junior  

Telecom Officer at the Calangute Telephone Exchange Goa and  

according  to  the  prosecution  PW.1,  Francis  M.  D’Souza  

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) had applied on 6th  

April, 1999 for shifting of his telephone connection from his old  

residence at House No.445 at Saligaon to his new residential  

premises at Calangute.  The Commercial Officer, Goa Telecom  

Division issued Advice Note dated 4th May, 1999 for shifting of

Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 2

the  telephone  connection  from his  old  residence  to  the  new  

residence.  The  said  Advice  Note  for  shifting  the  telephone  

connection was marked to the appellant on 5th May, 1999. The  

complainant handed over those papers to one Mrs. Remedios at  

Calangute Telephone Exchange who told him that the work of  

shifting would take about two weeks. The complainant pleaded  

that  he  needs  shifting  of  the  telephone  connection  urgently  

whereupon  said  Mrs.  Remedios  told  him  that  all  relevant  

papers regarding shifting have already been handed over to the  

appellant  and  it  was  for  him  to  take  further  action  in  the  

matter. The complainant thereafter contacted the appellant who  

told him that there were no spare lines to provide connection  

but promised to do his best to shift his telephone connection as  

early as possible.    

2. Further  case  of  the  prosecution  is  that  on  25th June,  

1999 complainant  contacted the appellant for  shifting of  the  

telephone connection and he came to the complainant’s house  

at about 1 P.M. The complainant took the appellant for lunch  

and at that time appellant told him that in case he was paid a  

sum of Rs.3,000/- in addition to Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- to be

Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 3

paid to the Lineman he would give the connection on 28th June,  

1999. The amount was later on reduced to Rs.2,000/-. As the  

connection  was  not  given  on  28th June,  1999,  complainant  

spoke to the appellant over telephone and he replied that there  

being no additional line and further due to the shortage of the  

staff  the work had not been  executed.  In  order  to verify  the  

explanation given by the appellant complainant contacted the  

local Lineman who told him that additional lines were available  

and it was for the appellant to get work executed.  Complainant  

being  aggrieved  by  the  delay  in  shifting  of  the  telephone  

connection and demand of illegal gratification by the appellant  

met the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Central Bureau  

of  Investigation  and  gave  his  complaint.  After  following  the  

necessary  procedure  a  raid  was  organized  and  complainant  

along  with  PW.2,  Anand  Naik  came  to  the  house  of  the  

complainant where the appellant had promised to come at 1.30  

P.M. on 29th June, 1999. However, the appellant did not turn  

up on the said day and when contacted by the complainant he  

told him that he was held up but promised to come on the next  

day at about 1 P.M.  Therefore according to the prosecution, the  

complainant along with the raiding party returned to the office

Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 4

of Central Bureau of Investigation and returned the amount of  

Rs.2,000/- which was kept ready to be paid to the appellant.   

3. Further  case  of  the  prosecution  is  that  on  30th June,  

1999 the complainant spoke to the appellant from the shop of  

one  Alfran  and  the  conversations  between  them  have  been  

tape-recorded and after having come to know that the appellant  

would  come  to  the  house  of  the  complainant  the  Central  

Bureau  of  Investigation  arranged  to  have  audio  and  video  

recording.   The  prosecution  has  further  alleged  that  the  

appellant  came to  the  residence  of  the  complainant  between  

1.30 P.M. to 2 P.M. and as soon as he was spotted near the  

compound gate the audio and video systems were switched on  

and the members of the raiding party concealed themselves in  

the bedroom of the complainant. The complainant introduced  

PW.2,  Anand  Naik  to  the  appellant  as  his  friend  who  was  

interested in opening a S.T.D. booth in the name of his wife.  

Complainant asked the appellant as to whether he would get  

telephone connection soon to which the appellant replied in the  

affirmative  and  on  demand  made  by  the  appellant  the  

complainant handed over a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the appellant.

Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 5

The  appellant  accepted the money  and thereafter  signal  was  

given whereupon the raiding party came out from the bedroom  

and  caught  hold  of  the  appellant  and  the  amount  was  

recovered  from  him.  Thereafter,  the  solution  of  sodium  

carbonate was prepared and the appellant’s hands were rinsed  

in the solution which turned pink.   After  usual investigation  

and obtaining the sanction the charge-sheet was submitted and  

the appellant was put on trial.  He denied to have committed  

the offence and claimed to be tried.   

4. In  order  to  bring  home  the  charge  the  prosecution  

altogether  examined  10  witnesses  and  a  large  number  of  

documents  were  also  exhibited.  In  his  examination  under  

Section  313  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  the  appellant  

denied the case of the prosecution and his plea was that he had  

neither  demanded  nor  accepted  any  illegal  gratification.  His  

further plea was that he was on leave from 30th May, 1999 to  

14th June,  1999  and  went  to  Sholapur  and  collected  

Rs.41,000/-  to  purchase  a  motorcycle,  whereas  its  cost  was  

Rs.46,000/-. According to him when he met the complainant,  

he enquired about the purpose of leave and on being told that

Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 6

he had gone for collecting loan for purchasing a motorcycle and  

short of money, volunteered to give him Rs.3,000/-. According  

to  the  appellant  he  was  avoiding  to  take  the  loan  but  was  

repeatedly asked by the complainant to come to his residence  

and collect the loan.   

5. The  trial  court  on  appraisal  of  evidence  came  to  the  

conclusion that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/-  

and accepted the same as illegal gratification and accordingly  

convicted  and  sentenced  the  appellant  under  Section  7  and  

13(2)  read  with 13(1)(d)  of  the  Prevention of  Corruption  Act,  

1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).  A sentence to suffer  

rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in  

default  to  suffer  simple  imprisonment  for  one  month  was  

inflicted under Section 7 of the Act whereas a sentence to suffer  

rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in  

default  to  suffer  simple  imprisonment  for  two  months  was  

inflicted  under  Section 13(2)  of  the  Act.  On appeal  the  High  

Court  by the  impugned  order  had maintained  his  conviction  

and sentence.  

6. Hence, appeal.

Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 7

7. Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of  

the appellant submits that the amount of Rs.2,000/- received  

by the appellant cannot be said to be an illegal gratification and  

on this ground alone the conviction of the appellant is fit to be  

set aside. In this connection Mr. Sagar has drawn our attention  

to  the  evidence  of  the  complainant  in  the  cross-examination  

wherein  he  had  stated  that  on  four  occasions  the  appellant  

wanted to return the money by stating that he should pay later  

on.   

8. Mr. P.K. Dey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the  

respondents  submits  that there  is  overwhelming  evidence  on  

record that the appellant demanded the illegal gratification for  

shifting  the  telephone  connection  to  the  complainant’s  new  

residence and in fact accepted the same.  He points out that  

the evidence of the complainant has not only been supported  

by  the  Panch  witnesses  but  also  fortified  from  the  sodium  

carbonate test.  

9. Having appreciated the rival submissions we do not find  

any  substance  in  the  submission  of  Mr.  Sagar.   The  

complainant had categorically stated in his evidence that the

Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 8

appellant initially demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- for shifting  

the telephone connection which was reduced to Rs.2,000/-. He  

has also stated that to collect the illegal gratification appellant  

came to his residence and the said amount was paid to him.  

PW.2, Anand Naik is a Panch witness who had supported the  

case  of  the  prosecution.   True  it  is  that  in  the  cross-

examination  the  complainant  had  stated  that  the  appellant  

wanted to return the money but this itself would not mean that  

he  did  not  accept  the  illegal  gratification.   In  the  cross-

examination the complainant had denied  the suggestion that  

he has ever shown any willingness to the appellant to give the  

loan.  He  also  denied  the  suggestion  that  the  amount  of  

Rs.2,000/-  which  was  paid  to  the  appellant  was  never  

demanded by him.  

10. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the  

prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt  

that  the  appellant  had  demanded  and  accepted  the  illegal  

gratification  for  shifting  of  the  telephone  connection  and the  

trial court rightly held him guilty of the charges framed against  

him and the High Court was right in upholding his conviction

Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 9

and sentence.

11. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and  

it is dismissed accordingly. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds  

stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the  

sentence.

…………………...........................J         [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

  ................................................J     [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 06, 2010.