Apeal202.07 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.202 OF 2007.
APPELLANT: State of Maharashtra,
through Anti Corruption Bureau,
Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1. Ramchandra Gokulprasad Kashyap,
aged about 40 years, Occu: P.H.C.B.No.
436, Distt.Nagpur. (Dead)
2. Kailash Namdeorao Ingole,
aged about 41 years, Occu: P.C.B.No.1329,
Tq.Parshiwani, Distt.Ngpur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.B.M.Lonare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr.Amol Mardikar, Advocate for the respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J.
DATED: 11th MAY, 2017. ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present appeal, appellant/State takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Nagpur in Special Case No.4 of 2001, dated 16 th March, 2007, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:22:50 ::: Apeal202.07 2 Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Accused/respondent no.1 is reported to be dead and appeal stands abated against him.
3. It is the case of prosecution that deceased accused no.1 was working as Police Head Constable and accused no.2 was working as Police Constable. At the relevant time they were bid Jamadar and constable at Paoni and Hiwra Bazar under the jurisdiction of police Station Deolapar. The first informant Bansilal Pardhi was dealing in business of forest wood and Mohawa flowers. It is prosecution case that accused had threatened complainant Bansilal that they would book him in theft case if he did not pay them an amount of Rs.7000/- which was subsequently reduced to Rs.4000/-. It is the prosecution case that out of that, initially, an amount of Rs.2000/- was paid on 24 th May, 2000 and Rs.1000/- was paid on 30th May, 2000. It is further prosecution case that on 26th June, 2000 accused demanded balance amount of Rs.1000/-. The complainant assured that he would pay Rs.500/- on Wednesday.
::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:22:50 ::: Apeal202.07 3
4. It is further case of prosecution that complainant was not willing to pay bribe and therefore he approached to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and filed complaint against the accused. Accordingly, a trap was conducted by the raiding party in which accused no.1 accepted the amount and kept it in his left side pant pocket. However, when the members of the raiding party arrived he managed to take out the amount and put in his mouth and swallowed the same. As he did not open the mouth, some fist blows were given on his face. Still he did no respond, he was taken to Public Health Center, Deolapar. Dr.Madhukar Gutte on duty took accused no.1 in the examination room and asked him to open his mouth. As nothing was visible, doctor gave him water and asked him to vomit but accused no.1 did not respond. Thereafter, accused no.1 was referred to Medical College Nagpur. In the meantime, attendant inform Dr.Madhukar Gutte that accused no.1 has vomitted something so Dr.Gutte came back to examination room and saw some ball like substance in the tray which was handed over to P.C.Anil.
5. Learned trial Judge found that the evidence of the complainant was contradictory with that of Officer who had laid trap ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:22:50 ::: Apeal202.07 4 and as such, it was not safe to place reliance on such evidence. Learned trial Judge further found that complainant was convicted in prohibition cases and was involved in many other criminal cases and as such conviction on the basis of his sole testimony would not be prudent.
6. Learned trial Judge also found that defence of the accused that acceptance of amount of Rs.500/- was towards repayment of loan was substantiated by panch witnesses Mr.Khorge and Mr.Mirashe as well as sanctioning authority Mr.Ramanand.
7. The scope for interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless the Court finds that the view taken by the trial Court is either impossible or perverse, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the findings of acquittal. No impossibility or perversity is found in the judgment and order of learned trial Judge warranting interference. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE chute ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:22:50 :::