DAMODAR KRISHNA KAMLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-1954-7-9
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 21,1954

DAMODAR KRISHNA KAMLI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EMPEROR V. AMIRUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
KAMESHWAR SINGH V. KING-EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR VS. CHAUBE DINKAR RAO [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BHASKAR HANBIRRAO KOKARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
G. GAYITHRI VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
HARI KISHAN BANSAL VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-300] [REFERRED TO]
NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU, S/O. LATE KHARJURA NAIDU VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2016-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATBHAI SOMABHAI PATNI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-51] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendkagadkar, J. - (1.)This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Thana, convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 165-A, Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one day and to pay a line of Rs. 100, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(2.)The charge against the appellant was that on or about 30-7-1952, at Thana he abetted Mr. Deshmukh, Deputy Chitnis, of Thana, who was a public servant, in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 161, Penal Code inasmuch as he offered Rs. 20 to the said Mr. Deshmukh, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official function favour or disfavour to him or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to him with the Collector and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 165-A, Penal Code.
(3.)The prosecution case is very simple, On 30-7-1952, the appellant, who is a Bound Forester, Manor, accompanied one Mohanji Kuverji to the office of the Deputy Chitnis at about 12 or 12-30 p.m. Mohanji had possessed a gun but his gun licence had been cancelled. Against this order of cancellation Mohanji had appealed to the Government and his appeal was pending disposal. As a result of the cancellation of his licence, Mohanji had kept his gun in the stores at the Collector's office. Mohanji, however, wanted to sell his gun and for that purpose he had gone to the Dy. Chitnis on July 30 with an application for sanction to sell his gun. The accused was the Intending purchaser of this gun. That is why he accompanied Mohanji when Mohanji presented an application to the Dy. Chitnis. The application made by Mohanji was in fact endorsed by the accused with the remark that he was willing to purchase the gun. When the accused and Mohanji approached Mr. Deshmukh they were told that it would take a couple of days to obtain the Collector's sanction authorising Mohanji to sell his gun. The application was accordingly left by Mohanji with Mr. Deshmukh and Mohanji and the accused left the office of Mr. Deshmukh. Mohanji had told Mr. Deshmukh that in case his appeal to the Government against the order cancelling his licence succeeded he might purchase a new gun. After Mohanji and the accused left Mr. Deshmukh, the accused returned alone to Mr. Desh-mukh's office and he told Mr. Deshmukh that It Mr. Deshmukh could manage to get the order authorising Mohanji to sell the gun by the evening of that day he would pay Mr. Deshmukh Rs. 20 for the purpose. Mr. Deshmukh was annoyed at this offer and he immediately took the accused to the office of the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, however, had left for his lunch and the accused could not therefore be produced before him. Mr. Deshmukh wanted to take the accused to the Personal Assistant to the Collector, but the accused refused to go with him and left the office. When the District Magistrate returned from his lunch Mr. Deshmukh submitted to him & note and thereupon the statement of Mr. Deshmukh was recorded. The statements of other clerks .who were present in the office of Mr. Deshmukh were likewise recorded. Mr. Deshmukh's statement was treated as the first information and investigation was commenced in respect of the offence alleged by Mr. Deshmukh. As a result of the investigation the accused was arrested and he was charge-sheeted under Section 165-A, Penal Code.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.