State challenged the acquittal recorded in a corruption prosecution. The court noted evidentiary inadequacies but held the acquittal did not call for interference and refused leave.
Leave to file criminal appeal refused.
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.
APPLN 245.12.sxw
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 245 OF 2012
The State of Maharashtra.
... Applicant.
V/s.
Mr. Dilip Krishnarao Mohite.
... Respondent.
Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Respondent.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED : 21st NOVEMBER 2012.
P.C. :-
Acquittal recorded for offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the learned Special Judge, Ratnagiri, in Special Case No. 6 of 2010, dated 25.11.2011 is questioned by the State.
2
APPLN 245.12.sxw
even though the two witnesses i.e. the Complainant and PW-7 say that there was anthracene powder noticed on the hands of the Accused, the misery is also created in respect of competence of the Accused to accept the form without proper channel as PW-1 asserts to have carried the Application without keeping the same registered with the Competent Authority i.e. PW-5. Acquittal recorded does not call for interference. Leave refused.
(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the acquittal in a corruption case calling for interference.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
MR. DILIP KRISHNARAO MOHITE
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
