SATYAENDRA DAYAL KHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard learned senior counsel for the Appellant and the counsel for the State. The Appellant during the relevant time, was the Collector of Customs working at Sahar Airport, Mumbai. He was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342 and 354 of the Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the Appellant of the charges framed against him and aggrieved by the same, the State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal before the High Court and the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and found him guilty of offence punishable under Section 354, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the acquittal of the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 342, I.P.C. was approved.

(3.) The case against the Appellant was initiated on the basis of an information furnished by P.W. 1, the complainant, who was a member of the Indian Revenue Service and who was undergoing training as a Probationary Officer. Her training was for a period of six months and on the last date of the training, i.e., 21.3.1992, she visited the office of the Additional Dy. Collector of Customs, Sahar International Airport at Mumbai. The allegation of the complainant was that the Appellant, who was the Collector of Customs and Excise, insisted on her accompanying him to his office at Air Cargo Complex to give some information relating to the files of some "revenue drives". P.W. 1, the complainant, accompanied the accused to his chamber at Air Cargo Complex. The allegation was that, she was molested by the Appellant while she was in his chamber. According to her, the accused led her to his chamber and switched on a V.C.R. and displayed a film relating to seizure of some contraband gold and when this film was being viewed, the complainant was seated on a sofa and the Appellant was standing behind and thereafter the Appellant caught hold of her hand and pushed her down in the sofa. She also alleged that though she wanted to get out of the room, the Appellant caught hold of her and pushed her down and put the entire weight of his body on her and made a statement that he wanted to have sexual relationship with her. The complainant came out of the room and she wanted to get back to her hostel and when she came to the exit point and desired to have a taxi and at that time the official car was already there at that place and the Appellant pushed her inside the car and thereafter she was taken in the car and because of her insistence she was dropped at the railway station. It was alleged that while the complainant was in the car the Appellant touched her body and thereby outraged her modesty.