Dismissed

The State of Mah v. Dnyandeo Bondaru Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2012APPLN/3235/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court refused leave to file a reference appeal filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau against acquittal of two officials under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act. Court upheld acquittal based on Sessions Judge's doubts regarding prosecution evidence.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file reference appeal under Section 8 PC Act refused and application dismissed.

The State of Mah Vs Dnyandeo Bondaru Patil and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.3235 of 2012

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3235 OF 2012

¶5

The State of Maharashtra through P.I.Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon ..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dnyandeo Bondaru Patil Age 48 years, Occu.Service, R/o Plot No.3, Yogeshwar Nagar, Old Nashirabad Road, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon

¶8

Ashok Raghunath Khairnar, Age 41 years, Occu.Service, R/o Survey No.42, Plot No.1, Near Sidhi Vinayak School, Ayodhya Nagar, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon ..Respondents

¶9

Mr D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for applicant Mr Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for respondents

¶10

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶11

DATE : 21st November 2012

¶12

PER COURT

¶13

Heard both sides.

¶14

The present application for leave to file appeal is filed by the State, aggrieved by the order of acquittal of both the respondents of the offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶15

Cri.Appln.No.3235 of 2012

¶16

¶17

The allegations are that the present respondents being the officials of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited had made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- in order to save the complainant from a charge of committing theft of the electricity. According to the prosecution, in fact, it was the case of faulty meter. Ultimately, the amount was settled at Rs.8,000/-. Thereafter once again negotiations in the nature of verification by the Anti Corruption Bureau people took place on 28.1.2010, wherein ultimately, the amount was settled at Rs.6,000/- to be paid at the tea stall, which was near the respondents’ office.

¶18

The prosecution in all examined four witnesses, including the complainant, one of the panch witnesses, Investigating Officer and the sanctioning authority. The learned Sessions Judge principally acquitted both the accused/respondents on the ground that the complainant did not depose anything regarding verification exercise i.e. of scaling down the amount of gratification from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. In the circumstances, the prosecution case that the complainant had only Rs.6,300/- at the time of pre-trap panchnama was disbelieved on the face that the demand of Rs.8,000/- was there. Besides this, the learned Sessions Judge believed the testimony of the defence witness i.e. the tea stall operator that at

¶19

¶20

Cri.Appln.No.3235 of 2012

¶21

the time of incident, some unknown person (the present complainant) had thrusted the amount in the hand of Respondent No.1 Dnyandeo Patil. In the circumstances, giving benefit of doubt both the respondents were acquitted.

¶22

The learned A.P.P. submits that the learned Sessions Judge did not take into consideration that during the verification exercise, the demand of the amount was scaled down to Rs.6,000/- and, therefore, there was nothing doubtful when an amount of Rs.6,300/was carried by the complainant before the trap. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly believed the defence witnesses.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents Mr Chatterji submits that admittedly, the complainant did not depose anything regarding any verification exercise and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly doubted the case of verification exercise and also the case of carrying only Rs.6,300/- by the complainant. He further submits that when prosecution case itself was that the amount was transferred to respondent No.1 at the tea stall, the defence witness, who was the said tea stall operator was the natural witness and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in accepting his version by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶24

Cri.Appln.No.3235 of 2012

¶25

¶26

Considering all this material on record, it is found that a probable view is taken by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the material before him. In the circumstances, there is no case warranting grant of leave to file appeal. The leave is, therefore, refused. Application is dismissed.

¶27

( M.T. JOSHI, J. )

¶28

(vvr/3235.12criappln)

The State of Mah v. Dnyandeo Bondaru Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Dnyandeo Bondaru Patil 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

Pralhad Yadav Patil Vs the State of Mah

Dada Sagaji Kolpe Vs the State of Mah

Sagar Dharamsing Shihare Vs the State of Mah

Pradip Ratan Dhangar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manohar Mahadeo Shinde Vs the State of Mah

Amol Uttam Bhange Vs the State of Mah