State applied for leave to appeal against acquittal of a maintenance surveyor for corruption charges. High Court found trial court's reasons not perverse and left the matter open to appellate court's independent view.
Leave to prefer criminal appeal refused; application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.129 OF 2006
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006
The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant.
V/s.
Dattatraya Digambar Salunkhe & Anr. ...Respondents.
Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP for the Applicant/State.
Mr.B.R.Patil, adv. for the Respondent No.1.
CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J.
DATE : 2nd April, 2007.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms.Gajare the learned APP and Mr.Patil
the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. This is an
application seeking leave to prefer appeal against the
acquittal of the respondent nos.1 and 2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. To state in brief the respondent no.1 was
posted as a maintenance surveyor in the office of Taluka
Inspector Land Records (For Short ’T.I.L.R.) at
Akkalkot. Father of the complainant Mahadev had expired
about 2 years prior to this incident and he had applied
to add names of himself, his mother and brother as legal
heirs of his father in respect of house bearing
C.T.S.No.278 of Village: Nagansur. For a long time no
action was taken and therefore, the complainant
: 2 :
approached the accused respondent no.1 on 17-5-2003. At
that time the respondent no.1 made a demand of
Rs.2,000/- to do the work. After negotiations amount
was reduced to Rs.500/-. As the complainant Mahadev was
not willing to make the payment, he approached the Anti
Corruption Bureau and trap was arranged on 20-5-2003.
The complainant Mahadev and one panch witness approached
the accused no.1 to his office. At that time the
accused no.2 was also present. After some discussion
all of them went to nearby hotel for taking a cup of
tea. There accused no.1 allegedly made demand of the
amount and as per his direction amount of Rs.500/- was
actually accepted by the accused no.2. The complainant
gave signal and the raiding party rushed to the spot.
The police inspector Kurundwadkar was informed about
what had transpired and during the search, tainted
currency notes were found with accused no.2 and
anthracene powder was also found on his hand. Both the
accused were chargesheeted and to put to trial. After
trial they came to be acquitted by the Special Judge,
Solapur.
3. The learned Special Judge noted that prior to
the alleged demand and the payment, one Kalasgonda had
made an application to T.I.L.R. to record his name as
the owner of the property bearing C.T.S.No.298. The
: 3 :
complainant Mahadev had also filed a civil suit for
restraining T.I.L.R. from recording the name of the
said Kalasgonda as owner of the property. Not only
this, he could not get any relief and on 14-4-2003 name
of Kalasgonda was recorded as the owner of the said
property. On 3-5-2003 T.I.L.R. also informed
superintendent of land records about mutation entry.
The learned trial Court found that the competent
authority to make the mutation entry was T.I.L.R. and
not the accused no.1 and as T.I.L.R. had already
mutated the property in the name of Kalasgonda long
before 17-5-2003, the question of demanding Rs.500/- by
the accused no.1 and payment of that amount to him or on
his direction to the accused no.2 on 20-5-2003 could not
arise. The trial Court also noted that when the
complainant and the panch witness went to the office of
the accused no.1, none except the accused no.1 and 2
were present and if accused no.1 wanted the bribe, he
could have directed them to make the payment to the
accused no.2 at that time only instead of taking all
these persons to a public place like hotel. The trial
Court also noted that the Deputy Director of land
records, which was sanctioning authority admitted that
the accused nos.1 was not in a position to take the
entry in favour of the complainant. The trial Court
found that the sanctioning authority had failed to apply
: 4 :
its mind before according sanction for prosecution.
With these reasons, the accused persons came to be
acquitted.
4. After giving due thought to the facts and
circumstances and the reasons noted by the trial Court
while passing the impugned order of acquittal, I find
that the order does not appear to be perverse, illegal
or per se wrong. Merely because the appellate Court may
take a different view, it is not sufficient to upturn
the order of acquittal. In these circumstances, I find
that it is not fit case to grant leave to prefer appeal.
5. Leave refused. Application stands rejected.
(J.H.Bhatia,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to prefer criminal appeal against acquittal in corruption case should be granted.
Whether the acquittal was perverse, illegal or per se wrong.
The State of Maharashtra
Dattatraya Digambar Salunkhe
J.H.BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court