Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Hiralal Bhagwan Baviskar

Bombay HC6 Sept 2010APPLN/367/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the State sought leave to appeal against the Special Judge's acquittal of the respondent for corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the acquittal was justified due to deficiencies in prosecution evidence and the probability of the defence story.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal is refused. The application and appeal are disposed of.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Hiralal Bhagwan Baviskar — Corruption | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1) CRI.APP. 367.2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 367 OF 2010

¶4

The State of Maharashtra
Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
Jalgaon .. Applicant

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

Hiralal Bhagwan Baivskar .. Respondent

¶7

Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the Applicant-State
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the respondent

¶8

...

¶9

CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 6^TH SEPTEMBER, 2010

¶10

ORAL ORDER:-

¶11

1.This is an Application seeking leave to file

¶12

Appeal against judgment and order rendered by the
Special Judge in Special Case no. 2 of 2005 whereby

¶13

and where-under the respondent came to be acquitted
for offence punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶14

2.The prosecution case before the Special

¶15

Court was that PW 1 Nirmalabai (complainant) was the
Chairman of bachat gat. The proposal for loan of the

¶16

(2) CRI.APP. 367.2010

¶17

said bachat gat was cleared by the Dena Bank. The
bachat gat was to receive Rs.20,000/- for which

¶18

certain information was to be furnished to the
concerned bank. She approached the B.D.O. for the
purpose of obtaining necessary information as
required by the bank. The B.D.O. orally directed her
to obtain such information from the Gramsevak. The

¶19

respondent being Gramsevak, she approached him and
requested to furnish the information as required
under the format which was to be furnished to the
bank. The respondent visited her house on 14.2.2005

¶20

and demanded Rs.1,650/- for the purpose of doing the
alleged official act. He subsequently visited her

¶21

house on next day and reduced the demand to
Rs.1500/-. She was not willing to pay him the
amount. She reported the matter to the Anti
Corruption Bureau. A trap was arranged on 19.2.2005.

¶22

It was alleged that the respondent accepted the

¶23

amount of Rs.1500/- from PW Nirmalabai in the Office
of Grampanchayat.

¶24

3.What appears from the record is that PW

¶25

Nirmalabai is related to the respondent. There is no

¶26

(3) CRI.APP. 367.2010

¶27

evidence on record to show that the amount was
collected from the members as the respondent had
demanded Rs.150/- from each member of the bachat gat.
It is significant to note that PW Nirmalabai
approached the respondent as per the oral directions
of the B.D.O. There is no record to show that in
fact it was part of the duty of the respondent to
furnish information and the B.D.O. had given
direction to him to do so. Though, PW Nirmalabai
narrated that the amount was demanded for issuance of

¶28

residence certificate and no dues certificate yet
nature of such demand was not clearly mentioned in

¶29

the pre-trap panchanama. The version of panch
witness i.e. PW 2 Ashadevi indicated that immediately
after the respondent was caught hold of, he offered
explanation that his hand loan amount was being
returned by Nirmalabai and he had not accepted any

¶30

bribe. This fact is also corroborated by the Police

¶31

Officer. Though such explanation was immediately
offered, yet it was not shown in the post-trap
panchanama. The respondent examined, in his defence,
DW Ramesh Pawar from whom he had parted with the

¶32

CRI.APP. 367.2010

¶33

amount. It has come on record that though in his
explanation given with promptitude, name of Ramesh
Pawar had been disclosed by the respondent yet during
the investigation, statement of said witness was not
recorded by PW 3 P.I. Mahajan.

¶34

4. Considering these aspects of the matter, it
will have to be stated that the acquittal of the
respondent on basis of deficiencies found in the
prosecution evidence and probability of the defence
being true one, cannot be faulted with. In this view

¶35

of the matter, leave to Appeal is refused. The
Application and the Appeal are disposed of.

¶36

 [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]

¶37

arp

The State of Maharashtra v. Hiralal Bhagwan Baviskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Hiralal Bhagwan Baviskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudam Sambhaji Dhavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Dnyanoba Kisanrao Shingire

The State of Mah Vs Arun Narayan Shimpi

Sarjerao Uttam Gonde Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Narayan Pandharinath Choudhary Vs Shilabai Narayan Choudhary and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Throughsow Padmin Arun Pisal Vs Venkat Tatyaram More and Ors.