Dismissed

The State of Mah Thr. Pp v. Shivaji Nivrutti Gute

Bombay HC24 Nov 2011APPLN/1917/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed an application by the State seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The judge held that the trial court correctly acquitted the accused due to lack of corroboration and a material omission in the trap.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal is refused. The application is dismissed.

The State of Mah Thr. Pp Vs Shivaji Nivrutti Gute — Corruption | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1917 OF 2011

¶3

THE STATE OF MAH THR. PP VERSUS SHIVAJI NIVRUTTI GUTE

¶4

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.N.Kendre. Mr. Salgare h/f Mr. Jadhav Satej S Adv For Respts

¶5

... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Dated: November 24, 2011

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.

¶8

This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 8.2.2011, rendered by learned Special Judge, and Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalan, thereby acquitting the respondent i.e. original accused for the offence p/u/s 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶9

I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 8.2.2011 and Record and Proceeding with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

It is alleged that accused while serving as Naik police constable in MSEDCL Police Station Mastgad, Jalna, he demanded gratification amount of Rs.500/- for not arresting the complainant under Crime No.151/2009 registered against him at police station MSEDCL, Jalna for theft of electricity under section 135 of Electricity Act.

¶11

To substantiate the charge levelled against the accused

¶12

aaa

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

prosecution examined in all three witnesses i.e. PW 1 Sunil Vasantrao Kharat- panch witness, PW 2 Vitthal Panditrao Jadhav – complainant and PW 3 Manohar Dhondiram Pagare DYSP ACB Jalna and Investigating Officer.

¶15

Although the panch witness PW 1 Sunil stated about the demand and acceptance of Rs.500/- by the accused, the PW 2 complainant Vitthal has not corroborated to the same. His evidence is not in consonance with the contents of First Information Report and aspect of alleged demand amounted to material ommission therein. Moreover, it clearly shows that before laying down the trap and before handing over the money by the complainant to the accused, there is no whisper in his deposition that accused made demand of bribe. Hence, it is apparent that, testimony of PW 1 Sunil Kharat panch and deposition of PW 2 Vitthal are not in consonance with each other in respect of very vital aspect of the demand and acceptance of bribe amount and therefore, the learned trial court acquitted the accused rightly for the charges levelled against him.

¶16

In the circumstances, having comprehensive view of the matter, afater scrutinizing and assessing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused is a possible view and therefore, same does not appear to be perverse and reasoning adopted therefor also cannot be faulted with and hence, no interference therein is called for in the appellate jurisdiction and therefore, present application deserves to be dismissed.

¶17

In the result, present application is sans merit is dismissed. Leave to file appeal is refused. R & P be sent back to the concerned court.

¶18

aaa

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶20

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. )

¶21

aaa

The State of Mah Thr. Pp v. Shivaji Nivrutti Gute

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah Thr. Pp v. Shivaji Nivrutti Gute

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Ofl Mahrashtra Vs Gunwant Apparao Katlakure

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kachrulal Fattechand Agrawal

Kavita Kailas Aaher Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Allauddin Mahammad Husain and Anr.

Lokseva Mudranalaya Thr. Sunil Alias Shekhar Appasaheb Vs Rajendra Appasaheb Shinde

The State of Mah Thr. Food Inspector, Jalna Vs Sunilkumar Rameshchandraji Modi