Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukhdev Uike

Bombay HC5 Dec 2014APPLN/1455/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted leave to file an appeal and admitted the appeal against an acquittal in a corruption case. The court observed that the trial judge erred in accepting a defence regarding a Village Panchayat resolution without verifying its genuineness, discussing the missing receipt, or applying section 20 of the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal granted. Appeal admitted. Action under section 390 CrPC directed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramesh Sukhdev Uike — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 Application 1455/2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.1455 of 2013

¶4

The State of Maharashtra.

¶5

.. Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramesh Sukhdev Uike. .. Respondent.

¶8

Shri. S.R. Palnitkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for applicant.

¶9

Shri. A.B. Kale, Advocate, holding for Shri. B.K. Pawar, Advocate, for respondent.

¶10

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

¶11

DATE : 5th DECEMBER 2014

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The application is filed for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of Special Case No.4/2009 which was pending in the Court of the Special Judge,Omerga. In the case file by ACB for offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the learned Special Judge Omerga has acquitted the accused. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Seen the original record.

¶14

2 Application 1455/2013

¶15

It is the case of the prosecution that the

¶16

accused was working as Gram Sevak in Village Panchayat where the complainant had filed application for giving no objection certificate for starting brick kiln. It is the case of the prosecution that accused had initially demanded Rs.7000/- as illegal gratification and during negotiation he agreed to accept Rs.4000/- for grant of such no objection certificate. The complainant approached the ACB. After following the procedure, trap was laid. The trap became successful. Tainted money came to be recovered from the possession, pant pocket of the accused and accordingly post trap panchanama was prepared. Sanction was obtained and the case was filed for aforesaid offences. All the witnesses stuck to their version given before the investigating agency.

¶17

It appears that the accused took defence during trial that there was resolution of the Village Panchayat to charge fees of Rs.4000/- for granting such no objection certificate and in accordance with that resolution the amount was accepted by him. Learned trial Court Judge has accepted this defence and has believed the record of

¶18

3 Application 1455/2013

¶19

resolution of the Village Panchayat dated 25-1-2009 to that effect. It appears that the learned trial Court Judge has not taken pains to ascertain genuineness of the resolution, Exhibit 41. It appears that receipt came to be prepared of the amount of Rs.4000/- If receipt was prepared on the spot before accepting the amount, in ordinary course the officer, who effected the trap could have recovered the record. But such record was not available when the post trap panchanama was prepared. Even the application for no objection certificate was recovered from the dicky of the motor cycle of the accused. The amount was accepted in a hotel and it was

¶20

kept in the pant pocket of the accused. All these circumstances are not considered by the trial Court Judge. Further presumption available under section 20 of the Act which is mandatory in nature is not at all discussed by the learned trial Court Judge. No such defence was taken at the time of trap. Possibility of creation of record subsequently is there. If there was such resolution, if it is permissible to recover charges, matter must have been moved to proper authority by Village Panchayat.

¶21

4 Application 1455/2013

¶22

There is arguable case. This Court has no hesitation to observe that this Court will exercise powers of appeal to ascertain the genuineness of the aforesaid documents. There are many things which need to be ascertained that is not done by the learned Judge of the Trial Court.

¶23

In the result the application allowed. Leave is granted. Appeal is admitted. Action under section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken.

¶24

Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J. )

¶25

rsl

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukhdev Uike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Sukhdev Uike

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

Dattatraya Bajirao Sangle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kailash Namdeo Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sharad Bhaskar Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harshal Mahadeo Kakde Vs Sau.Nirmla Suryabhan Chaudhari and Another

Naushad Begum Shaikh Hamid Ahemad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor S/O Deorao Kapde and Others Vs Chaitali W/O Ravindra Kapde and Another