The State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Vithal Phadtare

Bombay HC3 Apr 2007APPLN/5952/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application under Article 226, the High Court declined to grant leave to file a curative application seeking quashing of the acquittal. The court held that with the complainant turned hostile and failing to prove the bribe, no purpose would be served in entertaining the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application stands rejected; leave to prefer the appeal is refused.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

[1]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5952 OF 2005

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant
 V/s
 Shivaji Vithal Phadtare ..Respondent.

¶5

 Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the applicant/State,
 Mr. M.S. Mohite, Advocate for the respondent

¶6

CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J.

¶7

DATE : 3RD APRIL, 2007.

¶8

 P.C.

¶9

 . Heard Mrs. Deshmukh,learned A.P.P for the State

¶10

 and Mr. Mohite, learned Counsel for the respondent.
 Perused the evidence and the Judgment of the trial
 Court.

¶11

 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that

¶12

 accused/respondent was working as a Clerk in Tahasil
 Office, Medha, District Satara. On 25 Are of the land
 belonging to the complainant Shankar Pophale, his Cousin
 had made encroachment. This fact was revealed during
 the measurement taken in March, 1997. Therefore, the
 complainant had approached to Tahasil Office for removal
 of encroachment and getting back 25 gunthas of land.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Vithal Phadtare — Corruption | Bombay HC (2007)

¶14

 Respondent allegedly demanded Rs. 5000/- for Tahasildar
 and for himself to do the work. However, finally, he
 agreed to accept Rs. 3000/- for Tahasildar and Rs.500/-
 for himself for doing the work. As the complainant
 Shankar was not willing to make the payment he
 approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged a report,
 on the basis of which the trap was arranged. The
 complainant Shankar and P.W.2 Damodar Kapshikar, who was
 panch No.1, approached the accused and the accused asked
 the complainant whether he had brought the money. On
 his saying yes, he asked them to come to the hotel,
 where the accused took a cup of milk, while complainant
 and P.W.2 took tea. There accusd/respondent made a
 demand and the complainant handed over the marked notes
 of Rs. 3500/- to him. Respondent had kept amount of
 Rs. 3000/- in one pocket and Rs. 500/- in another
 pocket. Thereafter the complainant gave a signal and
 remaining members of raiding party came there. The
 amount of Rs. 3500/- was found in the pockets of the
 accused and anthracene powder was found on his hands.
 After investigation charge-sheet was filed.

¶18

 the accused and the complainant about the purpose for
 which the amount was demanded and therefore, panch
 witness could not say for what purpose the amount was
 demanded. Though in his complaint and in
 examination-in-chief the complainant Shankar stated that
 amount of Rs. 3000/- was demanded for Tahasildar and
 Rs. 500/- for the accused himself, in the

¶19

 cross-examination he deposed that in fact the amount was
 demanded as deposit in Small Saving Scheme but he was
 under the impression that the amount was demanded as a
 bribe. An application Exh.22 about deposit of Rs.
 3500/- in Small Saving Scheme was prepared and was also
 signed by the complainant. That document was proved in
 the cross-examination of the complainant. Thus the
 complainant himself did not support the prosecution that
 the amount was demanded as bribe. P.W.3 Anil Diggikar,
 who was the Collector and Sanctioning Authority,
 admitted in Cross-examination that during the period
 from April, 1998 to March, 1999 the scheme for
 investment of funds in Small Saving Scheme was being
 implemented and he had issued direction to the Revenue
 Staff to collect the funds for investment in Small
 Saving Scheme of the Government. In view of this, the

¶24

 complainant himself turned hostile and though initially
 he had supported the prosecution story, in the
 cross-examination he supported the defence plea that the
 amount was taken by the accused for depositing in Small
 Saving Scheme. The panch witness P.W.2 Damodar was not
 knowing for what purpose the amount was actually
 accepted, because there was no talk between the
 complainant and accused about the purpose for which the
 amount was demanded. In view of the circumstances, I
 find that no purpose will be served by granting leave to
 prefer the appeal. Merely because the Appellate Court
 may have made a different view about the fact is not
 sufficient to upturn the order of acquittal, unless it
 can be pointed that the order of acquittal is perverse,
 illegal or per se wrong. I do not find any such fault
 in the judgment of the trial Court.

The State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Vithal Phadtare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Digambar Salunkhe and Anr.

Anwar Abdul Raur Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babasaheb Bhimrao Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shivshankar Revanisddha Kabade

The State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Vithal Phadtare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Digambar Salunkhe and Anr.

Anwar Abdul Raur Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babasaheb Bhimrao Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shivshankar Revanisddha Kabade

A compact analysis

The State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh Hari Hire

Baig Salim Abdul Razzak Vs the State of Maharashtra