Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Rajaram Balu Dukre

Bombay HC15 Dec 2014APPLN/2526/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram T.V. Nalawade, J., the High Court granted leave to file an appeal in a criminal application filed by the State against an acquittal. The High Court found that the trial court erred in holding the Collector as the sanctioning authority and directed the appellate court to consider material evidence, including the recovery of tainted money, to determine if an arguable case of corruption existed

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal was granted, and the appeal was admitted pursuant to Section 390 of the Cr.P.C.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Rajaram Balu Dukre — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Cri. Appln. No. 2526/13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2013

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

....Applicant.

Versus

Rajaram Balu Dukre

....Respondent.

Mr. S.K. Tambe, Advocate for applicant. Mr. K.B. Autade, Advocate for respondent.

¶11

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 15th 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. 99/2010 which was pending in the Court of Special Judge (ACB), Shrirampur. The respondent, accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶14

This Court has gone through the original record. This Court has gone through the reasoning given by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court Judge has observed that Collector was proper authority for granting sanction under section 19 of P.C. Act, 1988. It appears that he referred some cases in respect

¶15

Cri. Appln. No. 2526/13

¶16

¶17

of provisions of section 6 (1) (c) of P.C. Act, 1947 and then held that the Collector was appointing authority and sanction ought to have been given by the Collector. It is surprising that when the case was of the year 2010, the Special Judge did not go through the new provisions of the Act and particularly, the section 19 of the Act. Section 19 (1) (c) which shows that sanction can be given by authority who can remove the employee concerned from his office. Thus, it is not necessary that only the appointing authority need to give sanction at present. Apparently, Sub Divisional Officer is the competent authority to remove Talathi from service.

¶18

On merits, it can be said that there is evidence of complainant, there is evidence of panch witness and Investigating Officer. The complainant has given evidence on both demand and acceptance. There was some work with the Talathi and only through Talathi, the complainant could have got the cheque of compensation of Rs. 31,206/- which was the amount in respect of land acquisition. The accused demanded the bribe of Rs. 2500/-. The panch witness has, however, stated that in his presence no demand was made. Even if this circumstance is considered, the other evidence on the record can make out offence punishable under sections 13 (1) (d) r/w.

¶19

Cri. Appln. No. 2526/13

¶20

¶21

13 (2) of P.C. Act. If the amount was accepted, then it was misconduct at the hands of Talathi. In any case, the evidence as a whole of the complainant, the panch witness and I.O. and the record need to be considered by the trial Court. The amount was recovered from one register which was in the use of Talathi and Talathi was very much there when the amount was recovered. The amount consisted of currency notes of Rs. 500/-. No anthracene powder was detected on the clothes and hands of the Talathi, but he was very much there when the amount was recovered. The provision of section 20 of the Act is not touched by the trial Court Judge which raises mandatory presumption when the recovery of tainted money is proved. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that there is arguable case.

¶22

In the result, leave is granted and the application is

¶23

allowed.

¶24

Appeal is admitted. Comply the provisions of

¶25

section 390 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶27

ssc/

The State of Maharashtra v. Rajaram Balu Dukre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Rajaram Balu Dukre

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

Noor Mohammed Jaan Mohammad Vs Tahreen Begum Noor Mohammad and Another

Bhimrao Rambhau Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

K.S.a.Jawed Shaker Shaikh Ismail Shaker Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dr.Jayesh @ Gulab Sukhadeorao Shinde Vs Appropriate Authority and Anothers

Pramod Sukhdeo Wadile Vs Archana Pramod Wadile and Another

Madhav Ramrao Shinde Vs Kamal Madhav Shinde and Ors.