Dismissed

The State of Mah v. Ramesh Parashram Sonawane and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Nov 2012APPLN/3007/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application challenges the refusal to grant leave to appeal against acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court held that the acquittal based on variances in prosecution evidence was reasonable and no purpose would be served by appeal, dismissing the application by refusing leave.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal is refused; application dismissed.

The State of Mah Vs Ramesh Parashram Sonawane and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

cri.appln.3007.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3007 OF 2012

¶5

The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. City Police Station, Dhule Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Ramesh Parashram Sonawane and anr.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the applicant-State Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2

¶10

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26th November 2012

¶11

PER COURT

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

The State wishes to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in favour of the present respondents from the offences punishable under section 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶14

The prosecution case in short is that in order to settle a chapter case pending against the complainant Mayur Tilak Parkanti, the present respondents being the clerks working in Tahsil office Dhule made a demand of Rs.500/- and on the day of

¶15

cri.appln.3007.12

¶16

¶17

the trap the amount was received. Therefore, the offence came to be registered.

¶18

The usual investigation was carried before the learned Sessions Judge. Five witnesses were examined. They include the sanctioning authority, complainant and the panch witnesses.

¶19

The learned Special Judge found that there is much variance between the date of first demand, as alleged in the complaint and as deposed to in examination-in-chief. It was also pointed that on the day of alleged payment of the gratification, no demand at all was made by the respondent No.1. Further, it is not the prosecution case that the respondent No.2, at any time had made the demand. It was also found that neither the complainant nor the panch witnesses were clear on the question as to whether respondent No.1 had asked the complainant to hand over money or specific amount of Rs.500/- to respondent No.2. It was also observed that admittedly, the authority to close the chapter case was not with any of these respondents. There was variance between the statement of the panch witness and the complainant on the question as to whether respondent No.1 went out of the room after the complainant put the tainted money under the rexin cloth of the table.

¶20

¶21

cri.appln.3007.12

¶22

The general tone and tenor of the complainant’s evidence was that as and when he was required to attend the accused in the Tahsil office, the accused no.1 was demanding Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- from him for settlement of the chapter case.

¶23

The learned Sessions Judge however found the story as unbelievable in view of the variances as highlighted supra.

¶24

The evidence on record would thus show that two views of the prosecution evidence are possible. The learned Sessions Judge has taken a reasonable and probable view. In the circumstances, even after grant of leave to file appeal, no purpose would be achieved. In the result, leave to file appeal is hereby refused. Application is dismissed.

¶25

( M.T. JOSHI, J. )

¶26

(vvr/3007.12criappln)

The State of Mah v. Ramesh Parashram Sonawane and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Ramesh Parashram Sonawane 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

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

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

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

The State of Mah Vs Ganesh Mahadeo Thorat

Govind Vithal Chinchole and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Rahul Manikrao Aabne Vs the State of Mah