Dismissed

The State of Mah v. Dr. Ashok Lahuji Bansod and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Nov 2012APPLN/2145/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused leave to the State to file an appeal against the acquittal of two respondents under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that the trial court's benefit of doubt was reasonable given the complainant's grudge and contradictions in evidence.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is refused.

The State of Mah Vs Dr. Ashok Lahuji Bansod and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) Cri. Appln. 2145-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2145 OF 2012

¶4

The State of Maharashtra

¶5

 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dr. Ashok Lahuji Bansod and anr. Respondents

¶8

Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the Applicant-State.
Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the respondent no.1
Mr. B.B. Yenge, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶9

CORAM : M. T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 23^RD NOVEMBER, 2012

¶10

ORAL ORDER:

¶11

1. Heard both sides.

¶12

2.Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents by
the learned Special Judge of the offences punishable under

¶13

section 7, 13(1)(d) and under section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the State has
preferred the application for leave to file appeal.

¶14

3.The allegations are that the complainant was a
Peon in the Primary Health Centre, wherein respondent no.1

¶15

was working as Medical Officer, respondent no.2 was
working as Junior Clerk. They had made demand of Rs.500/-

¶16

each from the complainant for the purpose of encashing of

¶17

the T.A. bill amounting to Rs.3735/-. In the

¶18

circumstances, verification exercise was carried, which
ultimately has failed. Thereafter, a trap was laid

¶19

(2) Cri. Appln. 2145-2012

¶20

wherein it was claimed that respondent no.2 Madhukar first
declined to accept the money, as respondent no.1-Doctor
had not reached the Primary Health Centre, thereafter
accepted the same. The evidence on record shows that the
present complainant had earlier received memo from the
respondent no.1-Medical Officer as he remained absent on
04.04.2006. Besides this, the complainant was in arrears
of certain loan from Marathwada Gramin Bank for which
respondent no.1 Dr. Bansod had received the notice. It was
further brought on record that the cheque of T.A. bill was
already encashed. In these circumstances, learned
Sessions Judge also scrutinized the evidence of the
complainant and the panch witness regarding the demand and
acceptance and finding major contradiction, both the
respondents were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.

¶21

4.Learned A.P.P. submitted that the learned

¶22

Special Judge ought to have taken into consideration that
the previous grudge between the complainant and the
respondents had nothing to do with the present case.
Merely because verification trap failed, it would not lead

¶23

us to doubt the entire prosecution case. Further
according to him, contradictions and omissions from the
statement of the witnesses were unnecessarily given more
weightage and hence he submits that since there is an
arguable case, leave to file appeal may be given.

¶24

(3) Cri. Appln. 2145-2012

¶25

5.Taking into consideration the fact of the

¶26

complainant already having grudge against respondent no.1
i.e. the Medical Officer and further finding that the
alleged demand was for carrying out the work which was
already carried, further, the admitted reluctance of the
respondent no.2 to accept the money on the first occasion

¶27

and even the contradiction in the statement of the
complainant himself as to whether the respondent no.1
Dr. Bansod has made a demand of Rs.1000/- for sending the
T.A. bills, in my view, a reasonable and probable view has

¶28

been taken by the learned Special Judge while giving the
benefit of doubt and the circumstances, there is no need

¶29

to grant leave to file Appeal. The leave is therefore
refused. Application disposed of.

¶30

 [M. T. JOSHI, J.]

¶31

arp/

The State of Mah v. Dr. Ashok Lahuji Bansod and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Dr. Ashok Lahuji Bansod and Anr.

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

Patilba Mahadeo Pingle Vs the State of Mah

Rajanikant Ramdas Narwade Vs the State of Mah

Suresh Yashwant Sonawane Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Manoj@Munna Subash Kathare and Ors.

Dharasur Mardini Nagari Sahakari Pat Purwatha Sanstha Ltd. Vs Ramesh Pandurang Shinde

The State of Mah Vs Sadik Shakurji Kureshi and Ors.