The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused persons under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court considered the trial court's reasoning and denied the request for leave to file the appeal.
Leave to file appeal was refused and the appeal papers were directed to be filed.
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 JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2922 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Pramod Kashinath Jagtap and anr. ..Respondents. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP. for the State. Mr. S.N. Karandikar for the Respondent No.1.
Mr.A.P. Mundergi Sr.Advocate i/by P.P.Runwal for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 28th August, 2008
| P.C. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | This is an application for |
leave to |
file |
appeal |
| filed | by the State of Maharashtra. |
The | accused | |
| persons | have been acquitted fo |
r offenc |
es | punishable |
| under | Section 7, 13(1)(d) and |
13(2) | of | the |
| Prevention | of Corruption Act, 1988. |
The | accused | was |
| the | Asstt. Registrar of Co.op. |
Societies | and | the |
| accused | No.2 is the subordinate |
officer | in | the |
| co-operative | department. The demand |
was | said | to |
| have | been Rs.5000/- for grant of |
new mon |
ey | lending |
| licence. | According to the complai |
nant, dem |
and | was |
| made | firstly on 15.12.1997. The |
recor | d | however, |
| indicates | that the complainant’s |
applic | ation | for |
| licence | was received later on 19.1 |
2.1997 | and | the |
| deposit | for obtaining the licence |
was | made | on |
| 18.12.1997. | Still the date 15.12. |
1997 | was | written |
| on | the said form. There is no |
explanation | in |
this |
:2:
| regard. It |
app |
ears to be the admitted position |
that |
|---|---|---|---|
| the visitors |
book | was maintained by the office. |
The |
| Investigating | Officer | in his evidence |
however, |
| denied that |
any | such book was maintained. |
As |
| regards the |
dem | and said to have been made by |
the |
| accused No.2 |
on the date of the trap, there is |
an | |
| omission in |
this | regard in the post trap panc |
hanama. |
| Admittedly, | the | accused No.1 was not present in |
the |
| office. | Admitt | edly, the amount was not accepted |
by |
| the accused |
No.1. | The defence of the accused |
No.1 |
| was that |
the | amount was thrust in his |
pocket. |
| Considering | the | over all view of the matter, |
the |
| reasoning given |
by | the trial court cannot be said |
to |
| be so |
perverse | as it would require interference |
in |
the appeal of acquittal. Hence, leave refused. s
Consequently the appeal papers to be filed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's reasoning in acquitting the accused should be disturbed
Whether leave to file an appeal under the CrPC can be granted against an order of acquittal
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Pramod Kashinath Jagtap and anr.
R.S. MOHITE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
