This is an appeal by the State against an acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge as evidence regarding the demand for a bribe was vague and the money was found in a showcase, not recovered from the respondent. The acquittal was upheld.
Leave to appeal is refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 18-crappln731-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.731 OF 2013
The State of Maharashtra
..Applicant
Vs
Sakharam Walmik Bhopale..Respondent
Mr.S.M.Jadhav, APP for applicant – State
Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, advocate for respondent - sole
CORAM : P.N.DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : MARCH 19, 2014
PER COURT :
Heard.
2]This is an application filed by the State of
Maharashtra seeking leave to file appeal against
the judgment and order passed by learned Special
Judge in Special Case No.14 of 2009 acquitting the
respondent of the offence punishable under Sections
7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
3]It is the case of prosecution that complainant
Dinkar Dake, while proceeding from his field on
motorcycle by the side of Dnyandip Vidyalaya, he
2 18-crappln731-13.odt
was intercepted by the respondent and was inquired
as to why, he was proceeding near from the school
as 12th standard examinations were in progress.
The complainant was, thus, taken to Pachod Police
Station and on obtaining signatures, was allowed to
go.
.It is the further case of prosecution that on
1st April, 2009, the respondent again intercepted
the complainant and informed that there are number
of offences registered against him and therefore,
chapter proceedings are to be initiated when, the
complainant requested the respondent not to
initiate any such proceeding as he was a poor
agriculturist. It is the case of prosecution that
for not initiating such proceeding, the respondent
demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/-, however, the amount
was negotiated to Rs.2,000/-. As the complainant
was not intending to make such payment, on 1st
April, 2009, he filed complaint with A.C.B.,
Aurangabad.
4]From the evidence of the complainant, it
reveals that after verification panchnama was
drawn, the complainant returned back to the
Investigating Officer and thereafter, pre-trap
panchnama was drawn as per Exhibit 24 and on
3 18-crappln731-13.odt
issuing necessary instructions to the complainant
and both panchas, trap was laid.
.It further reveals that the complainant along
with PW 2 – Ramesh, panch no.1 went to Police
Chowki, however, found that the respondent was not
there. The complainant, therefore, made phone call
to the respondent who, informed that he was ill and
taking rest in guest house. Accordingly, they went
to said guest house and requested the respondent
not to initiate action by way of chapter
proceeding. At that time, the complainant informed
the respondent that he was ready to pay Rs.2,000/-.
His evidence further reveals that he told the
respondent that he will go to village and bring
cold drink and money.
.According to the further evidence of the
complainant, it reveals that he brought cold drink
and came back to the rest house and informed the
respondent that he has brought money when, the
respondent told to keep the money in drawer of
showcase. Accordingly, the complainant kept Rs.
2,000/- in the drawer of showcase.
5]When the evidence of PW 2 – Ramesh, first
panch, is perused, he has stated that on his visit
4 18-crappln731-13.odt
to guest house along with the complainant, the
respondent asked whether, work is over to which,
the complainant told that now he will make
arrangement and thereafter, by contacting the
Investigating Officer – Chopade, PW 2 – Ramesh
informed about above conversation between the
complainant and respondent. His evidence further
reveals that he along with the complainant went
back to the guest house when, the complainant told
the respondent that the work is over and the
respondent then gave signal directing the
complainant to keep the money in the drawer of
showcase.
6]Considering the evidence of complainant as
well as PW 2 – Ramesh, it nowhere appears that
there was any demand made by the respondent based
on which, the complainant had filed his report
Exhibit 17. From the above evidence, it does not
reveal that at the time of the incident, the
respondent had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.
2,000/- which, even according to the case of
prosecution, is not recovered from his possession,
but from the drawer of showcase.
7]Considering the nature of evidence as
discussed above, since the evidence of the
5 18-crappln731-13.odt
complainant as well as panch on the point of
demand, is vague, the prosecution cannot said to
have established its case involving the respondent
to have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.2,000/-.
In that view of the matter, the view taken by
learned Special Judge is possible view that could
be taken.
8]The scope of interference in an appeal against
the acquittal by now is well established. Unless
the view taken by the trial Judge is either
impossible or perverse, it is not permissible by
this Court to interfere therein. The learned trial
Judge by well reasoned order has found that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
charge levelled against the accused. Upon perusal
of the judgment and material placed on record, I do
not find that the view taken by the leaned trial
Judge is either perverse or impossible so as to
warrant any interference.
9]The application is, therefore, dismissed Leave
is refused.
[P.N. DESHMUKH, J.]
kbp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can interfere with the acquittal of the respondent on appeal filed by the State.
Whether the view taken by the learned Special Judge regarding insufficient evidence to prove the Bribe allegation deserves interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Sakharam Walmik Bhopale
P.N.Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court