CASE BRIEF: RAJNIKANT JAYWANT LONDHE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 1999

CASE NAME	Rajnikant Jaywant Londhe v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 810
CITATION	(2000) 2 Mah LJ 597, (2000) 102 BOM LR 560
COURT	Bombay High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice S.S. Parkar
PETITIONER	Rajnikant Jaywant Londhe
RESPONDENT	State of Maharashtra
DECIDED ON	Decided on 17th December 1999

INTRODUCTION

Under the Indian Penal Code, the appellant in this case—a police head constable—was accused of corruption and abuse of power. In violation of his obligations as a public worker, the appellant is accused of accepting payments to release seized cars without facing legal repercussions. After a complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau opened an investigation, which resulted in his conviction under Sections 161 and 217 of the IPC. The case demonstrates the judiciary’s unwavering opposition to law enforcement corruption. The court emphasized how crucial it is that public employees uphold the greatest levels of responsibility and honesty. The belief that those in positions of authority won’t abuse their influence for personal benefit is the foundation of public confidence in law enforcement. The case’s conviction acted as a harsh warning against the misuse of power and showed that people are held to high standards of ethics and the law even when they work for the police.

The ruling highlights the necessity of openness and moral conduct in public office and restates the legal system’s commitment to holding corrupt acts accountable. This case serves as a reminder of the serious consequences that befall those in positions of authority who betray the public’s confidence and the law.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, who was found guilty of violating Sections 161 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a year in prison, along with a fine of Rs. 500/-if he failed to pay, was given a six-month prison sentence for each of the aforementioned offenses. This was decided by Special Judge Sangli in Special Case No. 3 of 1989. The appellant has filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence that were entered against him. The appellant was employed by Jath Police Station as a Police Head Constable from April to September 1987, which is the relevant time period. He was accused of violating the Indian Penal Code’s Sections 409, 161, 217, 218, 193, 196, and 201 as well as Sections 5(1)(c) and (d) in conjunction with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was accused of criminal breach of trust in relation to 91 foreign liquor bottles and Rs. 14/-in cash by creating fraudulent documents while serving as Head Constable at the aforementioned police station.

In addition, he is accused of demanding and accepting unlawful compensation from six car owners totaling Rs. 790/-in exchange for the release of the vehicles and the failure to prosecute the violators in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act. Additionally, it was claimed that he had manipulated evidence to vanish in relation to the aforementioned Motor Vehicles Act prosecution in order to spare defendants from penalty. On June 15, 1987, during the Hanuman Jayanti Festival’s Yatra, it was alleged that the Sarpanch of the village of Gudwad submitted an application (Exh. 37) to the police for police bandobast. The accused allegedly demanded Rs. 100/-as bandobast charges and issued a rough receipt; however, the Sarpanch deposited only Rs. 86/-, with the cashier taking Rs. 14/-. On 17.8.1988, Hanmant Kamble filed a complaint with the Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Bureau in Sangli, alleging corruption and unfair practices against the accused.

During the investigation, P.W. 8 discovered that the appellant had been paid differently by the criminals for not pursuing criminal charges against them. Following an inquiry, P.W. 8 sent the report to D.C.P., Pune, who then gave P.W. 8, Dy. S.P., permission to file a complaint. As a result, he filed a Form I-Report on March 9, 1988, and the offense was recorded under C.R. No. 30/1988, which is Exhibit 46. The investigation was turned over to P.W. 9 Police Inspector Honrao of the Anti Corruption Bureau in Sangli. Following his transfer, he recorded the statements of several witnesses. As a result, on November 30, 1988, P.W. 8 Dy. S.P. Mokashi submitted a charge sheet against the appellant.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the question of illegality of proceedings can be raised for the first time in appeal?
Whether the accused is liable for the offence under Sec. 161 and 217 of IPC?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on the behalf of appellant

It was argued that no police officer lower than the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in this particular case was authorized to look into an offense covered by Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, as stated in Section 5(1)(d) of the aforementioned Act, in accordance with its provisions. Mr. Pradhan claims that because P.W. 9 P.I. Ilonrao conducted an illegal investigation in this case, the trial was tainted, and as a result, the appellant’s conviction and punishment should be overturned.
The trial is invalid since the charge is ambiguous. The allegation does not state which legal directive the appellant disregarded.
Mr. Pradhan’s third claim is that the offense and date of the offense are different. He draws attention to the fact that the date listed in the checking reports is 26.5.1987 rather than 25.6.1987.
Mr. Pradhan goes on to say that the prosecution has not demonstrated what the appellant’s obligation was.
Mr. Pradhan also attempted to rely on the inconsistency in the number of the jeep, No. 2473, which P.W. 3, the driver of the vehicle, misreported as 7324 in the examination-in-chief.
Even though the offense was allegedly committed in 1987, an inquiry was conducted in 1988, and no money was collected. The cases of corruption under Section 161 were not launched based on the complaints of the people who paid the amount.
Mr. Pradhan concluded by arguing that since the appellant had already resigned from the military and that time had passed since the offense in 1987, he should merely get a fine rather than be imprisoned.

Arguments on the behalf of respondent

It is not permissible to submit the objection to the trial or prosecution for the first time in an appeal on the grounds that the officer did not meet the required rank. In the case of Bhajanlal, the Supreme Court has upheld the belief that any illegality committed during an investigation does not impair the court’s jurisdiction or competence to try a case when it is brought to a close, nor does it invalidate the outcome of any earlier investigations unless it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Additionally, Mr. Galeria cited Part III, Article 292, Clause (13)(c) of the Bombay Police Manual, which gives police officers in charge of police stations and other officers not lower than the rank of Head Constable the authority to seize and hold vehicles used without a permit or certificate of registration. Such an officer can take the appropriate action to ensure the car is held safely. This demonstrates that the appellant had the authority to handle the cases in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act’s provisions in his capacity as a Head Constable.
The order that the State of Maharashtra’s Home Department issued on April 19, 1989, granting all Inspectors of Police in the Anli Corruption Bureau the authority to look into any offense that the Prevention of Corruption Act punishes and to make arrests for it without a warrant. The aforementioned Order issued by the State Government under proviso to Sections 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act may not be applicable since P.I. Honrao P.W. 9 conducted the investigation in this matter in 1988.
The learned A.P.P., Mr. Galeria, argued that the accused in corruption cases need not to be cheaply dismissed and ought to face a meaningful penalty as well.

JUDGMENT

According to the court, there is a choice between imprisonment, a fine, or both for both of the offenses covered by Sections 161 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code. Given the aforementioned legal position, the fact that the offense was commuted in 1987, or roughly 12 and a half years ago, the appellant’s small payment for settling the cases, and the fact that the appellant has already retired from the service, the fine would be appropriate given the circumstances. Since the appellant is no longer employed, there is little chance that he will commit the same offense twice. According to the court, there is a choice between imprisonment, a fine, or both for both of the offenses covered by Sections 161 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code. Given the aforementioned legal position, the fact that the offense was commuted in 1987, or roughly 12 and a half years ago, the appellant’s small payment for settling the cases, and the fact that the appellant has already retired from the service, the fine would be appropriate given the circumstances. Since the appellant is no longer employed, there is little chance that he will commit the same offense twice.

CONCLUSION

The Bombay High Court reviewed the appellant’s conviction in Rajnikant Jaywant Londhe v. State of Maharashtra (1999) under Sections 161 (public servant accepting illegal gratification) and 217 (public servant dsisobeying law to save a person from punishment) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was a police constable. While serving as a police officer, the appellant was charged with receiving bribes and breaking the law. In addition, he was accused of manipulating documents and evidence to shield specific criminals. Whether there was enough evidence to support the charges of corruption and breach of trust was the main focus of the legal study. To bolster its case, the prosecution called a number of witnesses and provided documentation.

The court considered if the appellant’s defense, which focused on denying the charges, had any merit and whether the procedural protections had been followed. The case’s outcome reaffirmed the high standards held by public employees, particularly those in law enforcement. The conviction was maintained by the court, which emphasized the significance of honesty and accountability in public service. The ruling made clear how seriously abusing power for one’s own benefit, especially in a delicate position like law enforcement, affects the rule of law and public confidence in the legal system.