Single Judge of Bombay HC rejected the State's application for leave to appeal against an acquittal by a Special Judge dealing with corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding the trial court's view reasonable.
Application for leave to appeal is 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
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2569 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant.
Versus
Dattatraya Ramchandra Khsirsagar
& Another .. Respondents.
Mr.V.B. Konde-Deshmukh for the applicant.
Mr.A.P. Vanarase for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J.
DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2007.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant-State.
2. The State has preferred this application for
leave to file appeal against the Judgment and Order
dated 4th November, 2004 passed by the Special
Judge, Pune in Special Case No.6 of 2002. By the
said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge
has acquitted the Respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2
who were prosecuted for the offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the
accused No.1 working as Taluka Inspector of Land
Records had demanded bribe of Rs.500/- from the
complainant for fixing the boundaries. On 5th June,
2
2001, after filing complaint in the ACB office, the
complainant and the raiding party went to the office
of the accused. After some time, both the accused,
complainant and the panch went to a hotel, wherein
on demand by the accused No.1, the complainant No.1
paid the powdered currency notes to the accused
No.2. Then, on getting signal from the complainant
the raiding party caught both the accused. The
accused No.1 was charged for the offences punishable
under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and accused No.2
was charged with the offence under Section 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. By the impugned judgment and order dated 4th
November, 2004, the learned Special Judge, Pune
acquitted the accused after appraising entire
evidence. The learned Judge has held that as per
the prosecution the initial demand was made on 22nd
June, 2001, whereas, the muster roll of the accused
shows that they were on tour on that day. It is
held that no evidence is brought on record to show
that though on record the accused were shown to be
on tour, they were in fact present in the office of
land records on 22nd June, 2001. As the amount was
not recovered from the accused No.1, and both the
accused as well as the complainant were in the
hotel, the learned Judge disbelieved the case of the
3
prosecution that the accused No.1 had directed the
complainant to give the amount to the accused No.2.
The case of the accused No.2 is that the amount was
thrust in his pocket.
5. In the present case, admittedly the
complainant is not examined as he was reported to be
dead. As the initial demand alleged to have been
made on 22nd June, 2001 itself is doubtful in view
of the fact that the accused were on tour on that
day and moreover, since the money was not recovered
from the accused No.1 who is alleged to have
demanded bribe, the finding recorded appears to be
reasonable and plausible.
6. Although, on the basis of the evidence of
the panch witness and the investigating officer, it
is possible to take a different view, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, the fact that
the lower Court could have taken a different view
would not be a ground to interfere. The Apex Court
in the case of C. Anthony V/s. K.G. Raghuvan Nair
reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that unless
the findings of the Trial court are perverse or
contrary to the material on record, the High Court
in Appeal should not substitute its findings, merely
because another contrary opinion was possible on the
basis of the material on record.
4
7. In this view of the matter, in my view, the
decision taken by the lower Court is a reasonable
and possible view and, hence no interference is
called for.
8. Accordingly, the application for leave to
appeal is rejected.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of respondents due to a contrary possible view of the trial court.
Whether the findings of the trial court were perverse or contrary to material on record.
Whether the application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C. Anthony V/s. K.G. Raghuvan NairReferred¶23
(2003) 1 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Dattatraya Ramchandra Khsirsagar
J.P. Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court