Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Dashrath Gangaram Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Aug 2017ALS/3/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted leave to the State to challenge the Special Court's acquittal of public servants accused of taking bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, dismissing arguments based on minor evidence discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to challenge the order of acquittal. Appeal registered in Special Case No. 2 of 2010. Fresh bonds of Rs. 20,000/- directed from respondents.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dashrath Gangaram Patil and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

44-als3-17.doc

¶2

Kavita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2017

¶5

The State of Maharashtra …Applicant

¶6

Versus Dashrath Gangaram Patil and Anr. …Respondents

¶7

Mr.M.R.Tidke,APP for the Applicant. Dushyant S.Pagare for Respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶8

CORAM: SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J DATED: 18^th AUGUST, 2017

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1. Perused the Application. The State has sought leave to challenge the judgment dated 31.05.2016, whereby the learned Special Judge, Gadhinglaj, Dist.Kolhapur has acquitted the Respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(2)(D) R/W 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶11

2. Heard the learned APP for the State and learned

¶12

Counsel for the Respondents. I have perused the records.

Page 1 of 4

44-als3-17.doc

Kavita

3. It is not in dispute that the Respondents herein are the public servants. The evidence of PW-1 reveals that he had taken contract of installing/laying water taps and pipelines and construction of gutter and road of village Devkandgaon under the Yashwant Gram Samruddhi Yojana for Rs. 5,62,000/-. An amount of Rs.3,45,000/- was paid to him and the balance amount of Rs.2,17,000/- had remained to be paid. PW-1 has claimed that he contacted the Respondents for payment of the balance amount, the Respondents demanded bribe of Rs.25,000/-. He reported the matter to the office of ACB. PW-3 Madhukar Shinde (PI), who at the relevant time was the DY.S.P at the ACB, recorded the statement of PW-1 Pre-trap was arranged. Panchanama was drawn in presence of Panchas. Evidence of PW-1 also indicates that at the instance of the Respondent No.l he had paid the money to the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 was caught while accepting the said amount. Subsequently, the currency notes which were paid as bribe were seized.

Page 2 of 4

44-als3-17.doc

Kavita

4. The learned Judge, has acquitted the accused because of some minor contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 and 2 who had accompanied PW-1 at the time of payment of the said amount of Rs.25,000/-. The learned Judge has also held that the prosecution had not proved the voice sample panchanama.

¶21

5. Prima facie, it appears that the learned Judge has ignored the material evidence and given undue importance to minor discrepancies. Under the facts and circumstances, arguable points are raised. Leave is granted to challenge the order of acquittal dated 31.05.2016 in Special Case No.2 of 2010. Appeal be registered.

¶22

6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents waives

¶23

service. Respondents to furnish fresh bonds of Rs.20,000/-

¶24

(Rs.Twenty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Gadhinglaj, Dist.Kolhapur, within two weeks.

Page 3 of 4

44-als3-17.doc

Kavita

7. Call for further records and proceedings. Matter will

¶29

come up for final hearing as per its turn.

¶30

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. )

¶31

Page 4 of 4

The State of Maharashtra v. Dashrath Gangaram Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Dashrath Gangaram 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

Yusuf M. Talwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yusuf M. Talwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ranjit Sham Chougule and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pradeep Ramnayan Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Swati @ Ragini Dinesh Sonawane @ Falguni @ Ragini Murlidhar Deore Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Appa Jaywant Chaudhari