TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81 and started auditing the accounts of the Gram Panchayat. He disclosed to P.W. 1 that there were some audit objections and P.W. 1 would be required to remit an amount of ₹ 1,600 and in case of non-deposit of the money, a criminal prosecution would be started. The appellant further told P.W.I that if he pays ₹ 500 the audit objections would be removed. Later on, the amount of demand was reduced to ₹ 400 and P.W, 1 agreed to arrange for the same and the appellant asked him to bring the amount to Annapurna Hotel, Wardha on 13.11.1981 between 1 and 2 P.M. P.W. 1, however, approached the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint, P.W. 7, the Inspector of Vigilance arranged a trap. P.Ws. 2 and 6, officials belonging to the Forests Department were required to act as Panchas. The necessary proceedings were drawn up and the currency notes of ₹ 400 were subjected to Phenolphthale in powder and directions were given to P.W. 1 and the panchas that if the amount was accepted as per demand by the accused, the necessary signal should be given by P.W.I by rubbing his handkerchief on his face. As per the prior arrangement P.W.I and P.W.6 went to Annapurna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant firstly contended that the evidence of the prosecution is not trustworthy and reliable since there are a number of discrepancies, omission and contradictions. Even otherwise it cannot be said that the appellant in view of the facts stated had obtained any pecuniary advantage since there is no proof that he actually accepted the illegal gratification. Lastly the learned counsel also contended that there is no valid sanction, Learned counsel has taken us to the evidence of the material witnesses and pointed out certain discrepancies or omissions which have been considered by both the courts below and it has been rightly held that they are very minor and do not affect the veracity of the witnesses in any manner. Therefore we need not again traverse the same. 5. Learned counsel, however, strongly contended that the requirements of Sections 13(d)(i) and 13(d)(ii) arc to the effect that the accused must by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant should obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or any pecuniary advantage and that in the instant case since there is no actual acceptance of the bribe money the said require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edn. Vol. II, Page 1431, the meaning of the word obtain is given as under: Obtain :- To procure or gain as the result of purpose and effort; hence, generally, to acquire get, Relying on the meanings of the word obtain given in these dictionaries, the learned counsel further contended that the word obtain has a definite connotation and unless it is proved that the accused gained or attained the possession of the money and held the same, the requirement is not satisfied. According to the learned counsel even if the prosecution is to be believed it may amount to a preparation or at the most to an attempt on the part of the accused and here is no completed offence. 7. We see no force in this submission whatsoever. In Ram Krishan and another v. State of Delhi, AIR (1956) SC 476, a Bench of three Judges of this Court while examining the requirements of Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 observe thus: We have primarily to look at the language employed and give effect to it. One class of cases might arise where corrupt of illegal means are adopted or pursued by the public servant to gain for himsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority to appoint Gram Panchayat Special Auditors. In any event the fact remains that at the relevant time the accused was working as Gram Panchayat Special Auditor and P.W. 8 was the competent authority to remove him from service. Learned counsel, however, contended that the appellant was appointed by the Commissioner, Nagpur and P.W. 8 was not holding the equivalent post and therefore he was not competent to remove him. But it has to be noted that the accused was absorbed in the Local Fund Accounts Department and was under the control of P.W. 8, the Chief Auditor and as per the relevant provisions of the Act the sanctioning authority is the authority who is competent to remove him from the service and there is no doubt whatsoever that P.W. 8 is such competent authority to remove the accused from service. It must also be noted that assuming that the accused was initially appointed by the Commissioner he was no longer competent to remove the accused from service as he was not under the control of the said Commissioner nor he was in his department. P.W. 8 therefore is in no way subordinate to the said Commissioner. On the other hand he was the competent authority to remove the acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
