Allowed

Trambak Rambhau Sadgir v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jan 2023APEAL/133/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the High Court acquitted the appellant after finding irreconcilable discrepancies in the trap procedure testimony between the complainant and panchas, creating reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.2014 are set aside, the appellant is acquitted, and a bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. is directed to be executed.

Trambak Rambhau Sadgir Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.133 OF 2014

¶5

Trambak Rambhau Sadgir ….Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate a/w. Sumant Deshpande, Nitesh
Mohite, for the Appellant.

¶7

Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶9

DATE : 17th JANUARY, 2023

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 6.2.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in

¶12

Special Case No.2/2009. By the impugned judgment and order,

¶13

the appellant was convicted for commission of the offense
punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act”) and was sentenced
to suffer RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one month. The

¶14

1 of 26

¶15

: 2 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶16

appellant was also convicted for commission of the offence
punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
P.C. Act and was directed to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine
of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI
for one month.

¶17

2. Heard Shri Satyavrat Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt M.R. Tidke, learned APP for the RespondentState.

¶18

3. The prosecution case is that the appellant was working as the Soldier Welfare Organizer with the office of the District Soldier Welfare Office. The complainant was earlier working as a Gunner in 116 Para Regiment from 1982 to 1989 at Deolali and then he worked as Anti-Malaria Lashkar in Air Force (South) at Deolali. In August 1994, he received a call from the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘MSRTC’). He worked at ST Depot Palghar upto 2003 and then he was transferred to ST Department, Nashik. He made correspondence with the ST Department for fixing his pay-scale. He was not

¶19

2 of 26

¶20

: 3 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶21

getting the pay-scale as he was entitled to and therefore he
entered into correspondence with the ST Department, but, he did
not get any response and therefore he approached the District
Soldier Welfare Office and requested them to enter into
correspondence with the ST Department. The office accordingly
sent letters to ST Department, but, the complainant’s grievance
was not redressed. Therefore he wanted the office to send a
reminder to the ST Department. For that purpose, he approached
the appellant. The appellant demanded Rs.200 for sending a
reminder to the ST Department. the complainant did not want to
pay the bribe. He approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nashik.
He gave his complaint. An arrangement was made to lay a trap.
Demonstration of using anthracene powder was given to the
complainant in the presence of two panchas. The trap party went
to the office of the appellant. One of the panchas remained with
the complainant. It is the prosecution case, that, the appellant
accepted the amount of Rs.200 from the complainant. He was
caught at the spot. Thereafter FIR was lodged at Sarkarwada
police station Nashik vide C.R. No.3009/2008. During the course

¶22

3 of 26

¶23

: 4 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶24

of laying trap, pre-trap panchnama and post-trap panchnama were
made. The investigtion was carried out. The sanction was
obtained from the Sanctioning Authority i.e. the Director of Sainik
Welfare Department, Maharashtra State on 12.2.2009. The charge
sheet was filed. The Special Court took cognizance and the
appellant faced the trial. He denied the charges.

¶25

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined the complainant, one of the panchas and the investigating officer. The sanction was admitted by the defence. The appellant examined Bhanudas Jare as the defense witness. The appellant’s defense was of total denial. According to him, the complainant wanted an identity card but since he had not completed the requisite number of years he was not eligible to get an identity card. Therefore the complainant was holding grudge against the appellant and out of that grudge, the false prosecution was launched at the instance of the complainant. The learned Judge on consideration of the evidence before him and on hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned earlier.

¶26

4 of 26

¶27

231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶28

: 5 :

¶29

5. The complainant Sitaram Palde was examined as PW-

¶30

1. he has deposed as follows:

¶31

He was serving in 116 Para Regiment from 1982 to

¶32

1989 at Deolali as Gunner. He took VRS in the year 1989. In
1991, he was appointed as Anti-Maleria Lashkar in Air Force
(South) at Deolali through District Soldier Board. He worked
there for seven months. On 13.8.1994, he received a call for the
job as a Security Guard with ST Department through District
Soldier Board, Thane and from that day he was posted at ST
Depot, Palghar. He worked there upto 2003. Then he was
transferred to the Divisional Office, ST Department, Nashik. He
made correspondence with the ST Department for fixing his pay-
scale. The ST Corporation informed him that the pay could not be
fixed. In 2007, he contacted District Soldier Welfare Board,
Nashik. For that purpose, he met the appellant in that office. The
District Soldier Board made some correspondence with the ST
Corporation. But there was no response. On 21.2.2008 at about
10.30 a.m., he met the appellant for sending a reminder to the ST

¶33

5 of 26

¶34

: 6 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶35

corporation. The appellant demanded Rs.200/- for sending a
reminder to ST Corporation. PW-1 promised the appellant to pay
Rs.200/-. Thereafter he went to the office of Anti Corruption
Bureau, Canada Corner, Nashik. He met PW-3 Shri Avsare there
and gave his complaint. The complaint is produced on record at
Exhibit-11. PW-3 Shri Avsare then called two panchas. PW-1
handed over two notes of Rs.100/- denomination. PW-3 applied
anthracene powder to both the currency notes and kept them in
the left pocket of PW-1’s shirt. Before that he was given
demonstration regarding use of anthracene powder. The panchas
had read the complaint and had signed on that complaint.

¶36

PW-1, the panchas, PW-3 and the other staff went to
the office of the District Soldier Welfare Board, Nashik. PW-1 and
one of the panchas i.e. PW-2 Ohol went to the office of the
appellant. The appellant was not in the office. One other
employee Ghule was present. He told PW-1 that the appellant had
gone out for taking tea. After some time, PW-1 saw the appellant
coming towards his office. The appellant entered his office. PWs-1

¶37

6 of 26

¶38

: 7 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶39

& 2 followed him. PW-1 then asked the appellant whether they
had prepared the reminder letter. The appellant asked him
whether he had brought Rs.200/-. PW-1 answered in the
affirmative. The appellant suggested that they should take tea
outside the office. PW-1 has further stated the pancha then gave a
signal to PW-3. After that PWs-1 & 2 went towards the District
Court canteen and at the threshold of the District Court Canteen
the appellant demanded Rs.200/-. PW-1 took out both the notes
kept in his shirt pocket by right hand. The appellant accepted
these notes by his right hand and kept them in his left side shirt
pocket. PW-3 caught the appellant. He started running away but
the staff members caught him. PW-1 has further stated that the
appellant tried to swallow those notes. PW-3 and others snatched
those notes from the appellant. He was brought to his office. PW-
1 was asked to wait outside. After three to four hours, he was
called inside the office and on the next day PW-1’s statement was
recorded.

¶40

In the Court, PW-1 could not initially identify the

¶41

7 of 26

¶42

: 8 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶43

appellant’s shirt produced in the Court. He identified two currency
notes of Rs.100/-. He also identified the copies of the applications
dated 18.10.2007 and 3.11.2007. Those were produced on record
at Exhibits-12 & 13. Exhibit-12 dated 18.10.2007 was a letter
written by PW-1 himself to the officers from State Transport
Corporation praying for bonus between the period August, 1994
to October, 1997, allowance for night-duty and other monetary
benefits including the difference between the last pay-basic of
Rs.960/- which he was earning when he was working with Army.
Exhibit-13 was a letter dated 3.11.2007 sent by the District
Soldier Welfare Officer, Nashik and addressed to the Managing
Director of ST Corporation requesting fixation of salary of PW-1 as
per the Government Resolution in that behalf.

¶44

In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he was
not getting pension because of short service. He did not recollect
whether he had annexed other documents to his complaint.
However, he further admitted that he had annexed Exhibits-14 to
18 produced on record of the trial Court to his complaint. Exhibit-

¶45

8 of 26

¶46

: 9 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶47

14 was a copy of the Exhibit-13. Exhibit-15 was again a letter
issued on behalf of the Commanding Officer to the General
Manager, ST Corporation requesting necessary action to release
the arrears of pay and allowance to PW-1. Exhibit-16 was a copy
of Exhibit-12. Exhibit-17 was a letter dated 31.1.2008 sent by
District Soldier Welfare Officer, Nashik to the Managing Director,
ST Corporation reminding them to inform about the steps taken
by the ST Corporation and requesting them to fix the salary as per
the G.R.. Exhibit-18 was the letter dated 15.2.2008 sent by the
General Manager of ST Corporation addressed to the District
Soldier Welfare Officer informing that PW-1 was appointed from
1.4.2001 on the salary of Rs.2400/- and it was informed to PW-1
through a letter dated 2.3.2005. All these documents annexed to
his complaint, were admitted by him in the cross-examination.

¶48

He admitted that, at the time of lodging of the

¶49

complaint he had not mentioned in his complaint that the
appellant demanded Rs.200/- for sending reminder to MSRTC. He
could not explain why the word ‘reminder letter’ was not

¶50

9 of 26

¶51

: 10 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶52

mentioned in his complaint. In his further cross-examination, he
admitted that he was suspended on two occasions from his service
and a case was pending against him. In the further cross-
examination, he admitted that he had not told the police in his
statement that the appellant tried to swallow the notes, PW-3
snatched the notes from his mouth and that the appellant had
tried to run away. He denied the suggestion that he was insisting
that the appellant should issue him the identity card though he
was not eligible for the same and on the refusal by the appellant,
he involved the appellant in this false case. He denied the
suggestion that the ST Corporation had already fixed his salary.
He also denied the suggestion that he trapped the appellant when
he was returning from canteen by thrusting money in the
appellant’s shirt pocket.

¶53

6. PW-2 Suraj Ohal was one of the panchas. He had accompanied PW-1 during the trap. He deposed that he was working as a Junior Clerk in the office of Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik. On 21.2.2008, he

¶54

10 of 26

¶55

: 11 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶56

attended the office of ACB on the directions of his seniors. He has
described the procedure of applying anthracene powder. He had
read the complaint of PW-1 and had signed it. He has deposed
that once the appellant accepted the bribe, PW-1 was to give a
pre-arranged signal by taking out his handkerchief and wiping his
face. The raiding party went to the office of the appellant at
around 12.50 p.m.. He and PW-1 went inside the office of the
appellant. They met Mr. Ghule. The appellant was not there.
They waited outside for some time. The appellant then returned
to his office. PW-1 asked him as to what had happened to his
work. The appellant replied that his work would be done. The
appellant then invited PW-1 for tea. After that the appellant, PW-
1 and PW-4 came out of the Collector Office and then started
going towards the District Court, Nashik. The other raiding party
members were following them. They entered the new building of
the District Court. They started climbing the staircase for going to
the first floor. At that time, the appellant asked PW-1 to pay the

¶57

amount. When they reached the first floor, PW-1 took out the
bribe amount from his left pocket with his right hand and handed

¶58

11 of 26

¶59

: 12 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶60

it over to the appellant. He accepted that amount with his right
hand and kept it in the left side pocket of his shirt. PW-1 then
gave pre-arranged signal to the raiding party. They immediately
caught the appellant. PI Pagare caught the appellant. He tried to
run away. PW-2 has further deposed that PW-3 Awsare then
asked the appellant as to where he had kept those notes. The
appellant did not reply. Then PW-3 asked PW-2 where the bribe
amount was kept. PW-2 answered that it was in the left shirt
pocket of the appellant. The other pancha Kasodekar took out the
notes from the appellant’s shirt pocket on the instructions of PW-3
Awsare. The numbers of the notes were tallied from the pretrap
panchnama. After that, the hands of all the members of the trap
party including PWs-1 & 2 were tested under ultraviolet lamp.
The bluish glow was seen on only the right hand of PW-1 The
shirt of the appellant showed presence of anthracene powder. His
right hand finger-tips also showed presence of anthracene powder.
Then further procedure was completed in the office of District
Soldier Welfare Office. The appellant’s shirt was seized. He
identified the shirt produced on record. The appellant took out

¶61

12 of 26

¶62

: 13 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶63

the file concerning PW-1’s matter. Exhibits-12 to 18 were found in
the said file. It appears that Exhibits-12 to 18 which were
produced on record were the documents annexed to the complaint
given to ACB. The copies of these documents were found in the
office of the appellant. PW-2 then identified the pre-trap
panchnama and post-trap panchnama which are produced on
record at Exhibits-26 & 27.

¶64

In the cross-examination, he reiterated that the

¶65

appellant was caught on the first floor of the District Court.

¶66

7. PW-3 Shantaram Awsare was working as Dy.S.P, ACB,

¶67

Nashik on 21.2.2008. He has deposed about PW-1 approaching
him and giving a complaint. PW-3 then called two panchas and
showed them the complaint. He gave demonstration of
anthracene powder and arranged to lay a trap. PW-1 and PW-2
went to meet the appellant. PW-3 and others followed them but
they took care so that they were not visible. After some time,
PWs-1 & 2 and the appellant came outside and they started
walking towards the new building of the District Court. When they

¶68

13 of 26

¶69

: 14 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶70

were going to the first floor of the new building of the District
Court, PW-1 gave the pre-arranged signal. PW-3 and his staff
members rushed there. PI Pagare caught the appellant. PW-3
then asked PW-2 about the notes. He told PW-3 that the notes
were kept in the left side pocket of the appellant’s shirt. The
second pancha took out those notes on the instructions of PW-3.
The numbers were tallied with the pre-trap panchnama. The
appellant’s hands were tested under the ultraviolet lamp. His
finger tips showed the presence of anthracene powder. Bluish
white glaze was also seen on the opening of the left side pocket of
the appellant’s shirt. The documents from the appellant’s office
concerning PW-1 were taken in custody. PW-3 identified Exhibits-
12 and 13. He deposed that Exhibits-14 to 18 were given by the
complainant along with his complaint. He proved the omissions
from the previous statement of PW-1.

¶71

8. The sanction order was admitted by the defence and it is produced on record at Exhibit-32. The sanction order was admitted without admitting the allegations incorporated in the

¶72

14 of 26

¶73

: 15 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶74

said order. It was produced on record at Exhibit-32. It was dated
12.2.2009.

¶75

9. In the written statement given as part of examination under Section 313 of Cr.PC., the appellant stated that no work of PW-1 was pending with him. PW-1 did not fall within the definition of ‘ex-serviceman’. His salary was fixed by the MSRTC long ago before the incident. MSRTC had intimated that fact to the appellant’s office vide letter dated 15.8.2008. PW-1 had directly sent a letter to the office of the Lieutenant Colonel / Commanding Officer and, therefore, that office had sent letter to the appellant’s office for making correspondence with the MSRTC and accordingly the correspondence was made. PW-1 was pressurizing the appellant and his office to issue identity card of ex-serviceman. PW-1 was told by the appellant that he did not fall within the definition of ‘ex-serviceman’. Therefore, the identity card could not be issued to him. Because of this grudge, PW-1 involved the appellant falsely in this case. According to the appellant, PW-1 was in the habit of making false allegations

¶76

15 of 26

¶77

: 16 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶78

against the public servants. On the date of incident, when he was
going to the canteen of the District Court and when was climbing
the staircase, PW-1 came from behind and suddenly attempted to
thrust something in his shirt pocket. The appellant resisted and at
that time the trap party accosted him. He further stated that he
did not demand any bribe neither did he accept any bribe amount.
The pancha was deposing at the instance of the officers of ACB.

¶79

10. The appellant then examined his defence witness in the form of defence witness No.1 Bhanudas Jare. He has deposed that he was working as District Soldier Welfare Officer at Nashik from 1.4.2008 to 1.3.2012. According to him, as per the definition of ‘ex-soldier’, a person having 15 years of Army service or getting any type of pension, was ‘ex-soldier’ and according to him PW-1 was not an ex-soldier as per that definition. The correspondence with the ST Department was made only on humanitarian ground. Their office had received a letter from MSRTC that pay-fixation of PW-1 was already made.

¶80

In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion

¶81

16 of 26

¶82

: 17 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶83

that, he was deposing falsely to help the appellant.

¶84

11. Apart from this, the defense produced various documents on record which were admitted by the prosecution. those documents were about various complaints made by PW-1 against various authorities and about various actions taken against him.

¶85

. This, in short, is the evidence led by both the sides in

¶86

this case.

¶87

12. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution case. According to him, the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence were minor. Considering the background and nature of PW-1, the exaggeration made by him could be ignored. On this reasoning convicted and sentenced the appellant.

¶88

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the evidence of PW-1 shows that the prosecution case was false. PW-1 had definite reason to implicate the appellant falsely. He submitted that the documents produced on record and in

¶89

17 of 26

¶90

: 18 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶91

particular the documents attached to the complaint which was
tendered by PW1 to ACB showed that the MSRTC had already
decided the issue about fixation of salary and it was also informed
to PW-1, and therefore, there was no further necessity of entering
into any correspondence. The correspondence was not in the
nature of reminders and in his deposition PW1 had accepted that
he has not used the word ‘reminder’ in his complaint.

¶92

14. Shri Joshi, therefore, submitted that there was nothing left to be done on the part of the appellant in this case and, therefore, there was no occasion to accept Rs.200/- as bribe. The defence of the appellant is probable. PW-1 wanted identity card of ex-servicemen but he was not eligible for the same.

¶93

15. DW-1’s evidence shows that PW-1 did not fall within the definition of ‘ex-serviceman’ and, therefore, he was not entitled for any identity card. On refusal of the appellant to issue such identity card he was falsely implicated.

¶94

16. Shri Joshi further submitted that there are irreconcilable discrepancies in the trap procedure described by

¶95

18 of 26

¶96

: 19 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶97

PW-1 on the one hand and PWs-2 & 3 on the other. All these
discrepancies raise reasonable doubt against the prosecution's
case; the benefit of which must go to the appellant.

¶98

17. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 along with the documentary evidence in the nature of the complaint, pre-trap panchama, and the post-trap punchnama show that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), as reported in AIROnline 2022 SC 1160.

¶99

18. I have considered these submissions. To see whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, it is necessary to test the evidence of PW-1 in particular. His evidence will have to be compared with the evidence of PWs-2 & 3 to see whether PW-1 was telling truth before the court. As far as the purpose for demanding the bribe is concerned, it is the case of

¶100

19 of 26

¶101

: 20 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶102

PW-1 that he wanted the office of the appellant to send reminder
to the MSRTC regarding fixation of his pay-scale and for his other
grievance about not getting his dues. For that purpose, he has
referred to the documents at Exhibits 12 to 18 in his cross-
examination. Those documents and their copies were annexed to
his complaint Exhibit 11, when he had approached the ACB,
Nashik. Those documents indicate that there was correspondence
between the appellant’s office and MSRTC. The letters sent by the
appellant's office were signed by the Welfare Officer or by the
higher officer. PW-1 had sent his own letter on 18.10.2007. Since
it was ineffective, he approached the appellant’s office and that
office then sent a letter dated 3.11.2007. A reminder was sent on
31.1.2008 by the appellant’s office and on 15.2.2008, the General
Manager of MSRTC sent a letter to the appellant’s office
mentioning that the PW-1’s salary was already fixed. This letter
was dated 15.2.2008. After that letter, complaint was made by
PW-1 on 21.2.2008 and trap was laid on that very day. Thus, on
15.2.2008 itself, the MSRTC had reverted back in reply to the
correspondence made by the appellant’s office. Therefore, there

¶103

20 of 26

¶104

: 21 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶105

was no further necessity to send a reminder after 15.2.2008. PW-1
was then left with option to take steps in accordance with law for
his dues. It does appear from the letter dated 15.2.2008 that
MSRTC had explained about the pay-scale of PW1.

¶106

19. Significantly, a copy of this letter was annexed to the complaint made by PW-1 to the ACB officers which shows that PW-1 was aware of the response of MSRTC to the correspondence made on his behalf by the appellant’s office. It further shows that there was nothing left to be sent to MSRTC by way of a reminder.

¶107

20. Thus, the basis of filing a complaint itself was without a valid reason. According to PW-1, he had met the appellant on 21.2.2008 at 9:45 a.m. and as the appellant demanded Rs.200/-, he immediately approached ACB at nashik and gave his complaint. The procedure adopted thereafter assumes importance. He has deposed that he went to the office of PW-1 with the pancha. Initially, the appellant was not in the office. He came after some time. He then asked the appellant whether he had prepared a reminder later. The appellant then asked him whether

¶108

21 of 26

¶109

: 22 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶110

he had brought Rs.200/-. He answered in the affirmative. Then
the appellant suggested that they could take tea outside the office.
This important conversation is not deposed by PW-2 the pancha.
This was the first time when the appellant could have demanded
bribe in presence of pancha but PW-2 is entirely silent about this
particular conversation.

¶111

21. After that, according to PW-1 they went towards the District Court canteen and it is recorded in his deposition that the appellant demanded Rs.200/- from him near the entrance of the District Court canteen. This particular deposition if compared to PW-2’s evidence, shows another discrepancy because according to PW-2 the demand was made on the staircase of the District Court while going to the first floor of that building. The money was also accepted at that spot. Thus, the place where the money was demanded and accepted is different in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.

¶112

22. The next description of events is also interesting. PW-1 has thereafter deposed that initially the appellant accepted the

¶113

22 of 26

¶114

: 23 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶115

money and kept it in his left pocket of his shirt. PW-3 caught the
appellant. The appellant started running away. But he was caught
by the other staff members. The appellant then attempted to
swallow those notes. PW3 and others snatched those notes from
the appellant. This particular description is totally contrary from
the depositions of PWs-2 & 3. They have not deposed that the
appellant tried to swallow those notes. This is important.

¶116

23. PW-1 has also deposed that PW-3 and others snatched

¶117

those notes from the appellant. In that case it was necessary that
PW-3’s hands also showed presence of anthracene powder but it
was not so. Therefore PW-1’s evidence remains contrary to the
evidence of PWs-2 & 3. The anthracene powder was not seen
anywhere near the mouth of the appellant.

¶118

24. PW-2 has deposed that PW-1’s hands were also

¶119

checked under ultraviolet lamp and his right hand showed bluish
glaze. However pw-1 has not deposed that his hands were
checked under ultraviolet lamp. Even PW3 has not deposed that
the complainant’s hands were checked under ultraviolet lamp.

¶120

23 of 26

¶121

231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶122

: 24 :

¶123

25. At what exact point the appellant was caught, is also not clearly mentioned. PW1 has not deposed that he had given

¶124

any signal to the raiding party. According to him, as soon as the
amount was kept by the appellant in his pocket, PW-3 caught him.
This deposition of PW-1 is again contrary to the evidence of PW-2,
who has deposed that PW-1 himself had given the agreed signal to
the trap party and after that signal the appellant was caught. PW-
2, in fact, has stated that PW-3 asked the appellant where the
bribe amount was kept. PW-2 then told PW-3 that the bribe
amount was in the left side pocket of shirt of the appellant;
whereas PW-1 himself has stated that PW-3 had caught the
appellate immediately after the money was accepted by the
appellant; and PW-3 and others had snatched those notes from the
appellant. These two depositions are totally contradictory to each
other.

¶125

26. Thus, all these discrepancies have raised a serious doubt about the prosecution case. The learned APP has relied on

¶126

24 of 26

¶127

: 25 : 231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶128

the judgment of Neeraj Dutta’s case (supra). In that case the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had answered the issue under reference as
under :

¶129

“In absence of evidence of the complainant

¶130

(direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence), it is permissible to
draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant
under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
P.C. Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.”

¶131

In the present case before this court, the complainant
was examined and he gave his deposition. As discussed earlier
there are irreconcilable discrepancies and contradictions between
the depositions of PW-1 on one hand and other two prosecution
witnesses on the other. These discrepancies have raised a grave
doubt against the prosecution theory, and therefore, benefit of this
doubt must be given to the appellant. The prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal, therefore,
deserves to succeed. Hence the following order:

¶132

25 of 26

¶133

231.apeal-133-2014-j.odt

¶134

: 26 :

¶135

:: O R D E R ::

¶136

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶137

ii. The impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Special Case No.2/2009 is set aside.

¶138

iii.The appellant is acquitted from all the charges framed in
this case.

¶139

iv. The appellant shall execute a bond under Section 437A of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court to the satisfaction of that Court.

¶140

v. Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶141

Digitally signed byPRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAODESHMANE DESHMANE Date: 2023.01.20 10:39:54 +0530

¶142

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶143

Deshmane (PS)

¶144

26 of 26

Trambak Rambhau Sadgir v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trambak Rambhau Sadgir v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Sharadchandra Sane and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Chandrakant Kale Vs State of Maharashtra

Shweta Nirpat Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Suresh Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Omkar @ Chikya Ananda Chougule Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Punjgir Gosavi Vs State of Maharashtra