Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Aneel Hilal Wagh

Bombay HC10 Dec 2014APPLN/2525/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of Maharashtra sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of Aneel Hilal Wagh by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court admitted the appeal, holding that the trial court erred in not invoking mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the Act given the evidence of tainted money recovery.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal and admission of appeal granted; compliance with Section 390 CrPC directed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Aneel Hilal Wagh — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 Application 2525/2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.2525 of 2013

¶4

The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Aneel Hilal Wagh. .. Respondent.

¶7

Shri. A.S. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for applicant.

¶8

Shri. Amit S. Savale, Advocate, for respondent.

¶9

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

¶10

DATE : 10th DECEMBER 2014

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The application is filed for seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of Special Case No.8/2010 which was pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada (Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). In the case filed for offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Correction Act, 1988, the respondent is acquitted by the learned Special

¶13

2 Application 2525/2013

¶14

Judge. Seen the original record. Seen the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court Judge.

¶15

The evidence shows that there was work like mutation of name of the complainant in revenue record due to death of his father. He had applied for entering his name in place of his father to the Talathi, present respondent, accused. The accused demanded Rs.1500/for the job and then he reduced the amount to make it to Rs.1000/-. The complainant wanted to take action against the Talathi and so he approached the ACB. Trap was laid. Pre-trap and post-trap panchanamas were prepared by the ACB. Before the trial Court, the complainant, the Panch and the Investigating Officer stuck to their versions. The recovery of tainted money from the person of the accused is apparently proved. In view of these circumstances it was necessary for the trial Court to use Section 20 of the Act for raising mandatory presumption. It can be said that the mandatory presumption is not at all touched by the learned trial Court Judge.

¶16

3 Application 2525/2013

¶17

The trial Court Judge has given acquittal by

¶18

observing that immediately after the money was demanded on first occasion by the accused the complainant had not approached the ACB and he approached the ACB late. Another reason is given that the authority did not apply mind at the time of giving sanction. This Court has gone through the order of sanction and it contains the relevant material. It also shows that the papers of investigation were considered by the authority. There is arguable case in view of the aforesaid circumstances. So, the application is allowed. Leave is granted. Appeal is admitted. Compliance of section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be made.

¶19

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

¶20

rsl

The State of Maharashtra v. Aneel Hilal Wagh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Aneel Hilal Wagh

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

Dr. Sushma Arun Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mahendra Manikrao Kondekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Deccan Sugar Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uja Ajay Vijay Murlidhar Dalvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Special Public Prosecutor Nirmalkumar Dayaram Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Nivrutti Avachar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others