The State of Maharashtra v. Chandrahas Deoram Shelar

Bombay HC4 Aug 2007APPLN/5271/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay reserved its decision on leave to appeal against the acquittal of an accused in a corruption case, where the Special Judge acquitted the accused due to a material witness and absence of signal by the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal is rejected. No interference in appeal allowed.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5271 OF 2005

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant.

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 Chandrahas Deoram Shelar .. Respondent.

¶7

 Mr.V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the applicant.

¶8

 Mr.S.V. Kotwal for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

¶10

DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2007.
P.C. :

¶11

 1. Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant and
 Mr.S.V. Kotwal for the respondent.

¶12

 2. This Criminal Application is filed by the
 State seeking leave to file appeal against the
 judgment and order dated 14th December, 2004 passed
 by the learned Special Judge, Pune in Special Case
 No.3 of 2001.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Chandrahas Deoram Shelar — Corruption | Bombay HC (2007)

¶13

 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the
 respondent-accused working as Head Constable had
 demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the
 complainant for submitting the chargesheet against
 the complainant and for releasing him on bail.
 Accordingly, the accused was charged for the
 offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read

¶16

 4. The complainant P.W. No.1 working as S.T.
 Driver was involved in Crime under Section 427, 279
 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section
 183 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. An F.I.R.
 was lodged against the complainant and according to
 the prosecution, the complainant was called to the
 police station on 8th July, 2000 for the purpose of
 filing chargesheet and on that day the accused
 demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- and the complainant was
 asked to attend the police station on 10th July,
 2000. On 10th July, 2000 the complainant went to
 the Office of Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodged a
 complainant to the effect that the accused has
 demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-. Thereafter, the
 complainant along with pancha witnesses Shedage
 (P.W. 2) and surety Pansare attended the police
 station. According to the prosecution, in the
 presence of the pancha witness and surety the
 accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the
 complainant and the same was paid by the complainant
 to the accused. Thereafter, the accused as well as
 the complainant came out of the cabin because the
 accused wanted to take signature of the senior
 officer on some documents. Admittedly, the
 complainant did not give any signal to the raiding

¶18

 party immediately after the complainant and the
 accused came out of the cabin. After coming out of
 his cabin, the accused went to his senior’s cabin
 for obtaining signatures and while returning from
 his senior’s cabin, according to the accused, the
 complainant tried to thrust a packet into his pocket
 which the accused declined to accept and threw it
 out. According to the prosecution, while the
 accused was returning from the senior’s cabin, the
 complainant gave signal to the raiding party and
 thereupon the accused was apprehended. As the
 anthracene powder was found on the hands and pocket
 of the accused, he was charged under the offences
 punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with
 Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶19

 5. On careful consideration of the evidence on
 record, by the impugned judgment and order dated
 14th December, 2000, the learned Special Judge, Pune
 has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that
 the panch witness (P.W. 2) admitted in his evidence
 that the accused did not demand any bribe from the
 complainant for filing charge sheet and getting the
 complainant released on bail. Admittedly,
 Mr.Pansare (surety) who was present at the material
 time in the cabin of the accused has not been
 examined by the prosecution. Thus, the case of the
 prosecution that the accused demanded and accepted

¶21

 bribe in his cabin is demolished by the P.W. No.2.
 Moreover, as per the plan, the complainant was to
 give signal to the raiding party immediately after
 coming out of cabin of the accused. Admittedly, no
 signal was given by the complainant to the raiding
 party immediately after coming out of the cabin of
 the accused.

The State of Maharashtra v. Chandrahas Deoram Shelar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suvarna N Lahamge Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Deepak Sahebrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Shankar Sitaram Barge

Deepak Sahebrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Shankar Sitaram Barge

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Ramchandra Khisrsagar and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra v. Chandrahas Deoram Shelar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suvarna N Lahamge Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Deepak Sahebrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Shankar Sitaram Barge

Deepak Sahebrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Shankar Sitaram Barge

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Ramchandra Khisrsagar and Anr.

A compact analysis

Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh Vs Kamgar Suraksha Sangh and Anr.

Baby Appa More Vs Dinesh Gangaram Devargavkar