Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Vithal S/O. Pandurang Dhage

Bombay HC22 Mar 2019REVN/172/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged an accused who was found possessing bribe money at the behest of another accused. The revision was allowed and the discharge order quashed, holding that abetment under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is punishable even without a personal demand.

What did the court decide?

The discharge order passed by the Special Judge was quashed and set aside; the respondent was directed to face trial.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vithal S/O. Pandurang Dhage — Corruption | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

172.17Revn..odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2017

¶5

The State of Maharashtra
Through : Dy. Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Osmanabad. .. APPLICANT

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

Vithal s/o. Pandurang Dhage,
Age: 65 Years, Occup. Fair Shop Keeper,
R/o. Chinchpur (Dhage), Tq.Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad. .. RESPONDENT

¶8

...

¶9

Mr.S.P.Sonpawale,AdditionalPublic
Prosecutor for the Applicant–State.
Mr.V.S.Undre, Advocate for the respondent.

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM: V.M.DESHPANDE,J.
 DATE : 22.03.2019

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶13

1]Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

¶14

and heard finally with the consent of the
parties.

¶15

2]The State has approached this Court,
challenging the order passed by the learned

¶16

172.17Revn..odt

¶17

¶18

I/c. Special Judge, Bhoom, dated 03.06.2017,

¶19

below Exh.24 in Special Case [ACB]
No.01/2017, by which the learned Judge of the
Court below has allowed the Application
[Exh.24], filed on behalf of the original
accused No. 2 – Vithal Pandurang Dhage i.e.
the present respondent for discharge.

¶20

3]Heard Shri S.P. Sonpawale, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Applicant–State and Shri V.S.Undre, learned
counsel for the respondent–original accused
No.2.

¶21

4]According to the learned counsel for
the respondent, the present respondent has
not made any demand to the complainant. It is
also stated by him that at the time of
alleged trap, he was also not present on the
spot, and was present at his native place,
which is 10 kilometers away from the spot.

¶22

172.17Revn..odt

¶23

¶24

5]Perusal of the impugned order, shows

¶25

that primarily the learned Judge of the Court
below has discharged the present respondent–
accused No.2, because he has not demanded the
bribe amount from the complainant.

¶26

6]One Hanumant Mohan Dhage approached
to the Anti Corruption Bureau on 24.10.2016
and reported that accused No.1 Sudhir Kale
demanded illegal gratification for issuance
of the ration card. Accordingly, the
Officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau at
Osmanabad, prepared pre-trap panchanama on
the very same day. Shri Asif B. Shaikh,
Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Osmanabad, decided to lay trap on the said
Sudhir Kale. Accordingly, the raiding party
proceeded to the office wherein the said
Sudhir Kale was discharging his duties. From
the record, it is clear that, on the said day

¶27

172.17Revn..odt

¶28

¶29

accused No.1 Sudhir Kale accepted bribe
amount from the complainant–Hanumant Mohan
Dhage through the present respondent i.e.
accused No.2. After acceptance of the said
amount and after prearrange signal, the
Investigating Officer along with other
raiding party, entered into the office and on
enquiry, it was revealed that the present
respondent has accepted the bribe amount at
the behest of accused No.1–Sudhir Kale and
the said was kept in his pocket. Accordingly,
search of the present respondent was taken
and on the said search, notes of Rs.200/-
were found in his possession, and when those
were examined under the ultraviolet lamps,
there were traces of anthracene powder.

¶30

7]Thereafter, after completion of

¶31

other formalities, the FIR was lodged by Shri
Asif B. Shaikh, Police Inspector, Anti
Corruption Bureau, Osmanabad, upon which

¶32

¶33

172.17Revn..odt

¶34

crime was registered and which ultimately
culminated in Special Case [ACB] No.01/2017.

¶35

8]From the panchnama No.2, it is clear
that the notes of the anthracene powder were
found in possession of the respondent-Vithal
Dhage. According to the respondent, he was
not present there and he was at his native
place, in my view, the said defence will have
to be proved during the trial, wherein his
defence can be tested.

¶36

9]The learned Judge, in my view, has
committed an error that the present
respondent is required to be discharged
because he has not demanded the amount. The
learned Judge has not given thoughtful
consideration to the various provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, especially
Section 12 of the said Act, which says even

¶37

the person, who abets the offence, can be

¶38

¶39

172.17Revn..odt

¶40

prosecuted. Consequently, the Courts below
has committed an error, which cannot sustain
in the eyes of law. Hence, I pass the
following order:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i]The Criminal Revision Application is
allowed.

¶43

ii]The order dated 03.06.2017 passed by
the learned I/c. Special Judge,
Bhoom, District Osmanabad, below
Exh. 24 in Special Case [ACB]
No.01/2017, is hereby quashed and
set aside. The respondent–Vithal
Pandurang Dhage will have to face
trial in the said case.

¶44

iii]Needless to mention that it will be
open for the respondent to prove his
defence at the appropriate stage.

¶45

172.17Revn..odt

¶46

¶47

iv]Rule is made absolute on above
terms.TheCriminalRevision
Applicationisdisposedof
accordingly.

¶48

 [V.M.DESHPANDE]
 JUDGE

¶49

DDC

The State of Maharashtra v. Vithal S/O. Pandurang Dhage

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Vithal S/O. Pandurang Dhage

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

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal S/O Digambar Dake Vs the State of Maharashra and Others

Tulshiram S/O. Fakirrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shubham Vijay Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others