Bombay High Court
Ramesh Gajanan Dange (Dead) Thr ... vs State Of ... on 12 April, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
apeal.39.00.jud.doc 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.39 OF 2000
L.R. brought on record as Ramesh Gajanan Dange (Dead)
per order dated 16/09/2011
Amended as per Coruts's through Legal Heir
order dated 16/09/2011 to
continue the appeal. Rekha wd/o Ramesh Dange (Dead)
Amended as per Court's through Legal Heir
order dated 25/09/2012
Sameer s/o Ramesh Dange,
Aged about 21 years,
Occu. Student,
R/o 641, Naik Road, Mahal, Nagpur. .... Appellant
-- Versus --
State of Maharashtra,
through Anti Corruption Bureau,
Nagpur. .... Respondent
-------------
Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. T.H. Udeshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State.
-------------
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : APRIL 12, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and
order dated 14/01/2000 passed by the learned Special Judge
(Anti Corruption), Nagpur in Special Case No.17/1989.
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:02:41 :::
apeal.39.00.jud.doc 2
02] Appellant-Ramesh, original accused no.2, died during
pendency of appeal. His wife prosecuted the appeal. She also
died on 11/07/2012. Applicant is legal heir of deceased Ramesh.
He preferred Criminal Application No.716/2012 for substituting
his name as he wanted to continue with the appeal and get
removed the stigma of conviction on his deceased father. While
passing order dated 25/09/2012, this Court had allowed the
application and in this way applicant had been added in the
array of appellant.
03] Prosecution case, in brief, is as under :
i. Complainant-Vasant Bapurao Mane was resident of
Chandannagar, Nagpur. In 1984, his father took
connection of a tap from Nagpur Municipal
Corporation for residential purpose. In 1986,
construction of residential house was carried out by
father of complainant. After construction, Officer of
Water Works Department of Nagpur Municipal
Corporation registered a tap connection as non-
residential in the concerned record. Though tap
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:02:41 :::
apeal.39.00.jud.doc 3
connection was converted to residential, complainant
was getting the bill of more amount as it was shown
for non-residential purpose in the official record of the
Corporation.
ii. Therefore, on 11/05/1988, an application to correct
the charges was moved by father of complainant. On
12/09/1988, complainant went to the office of water
supply department. Accused no.1 (since deceased)
was meter inspector and accused no.2 was meter
reader that time. Complainant met accused no.1 and
requested to reduce the amount of bill. Accused no.1
demanded Rs.150/- for making an endorsement of
part payment of Rs.360/- on the bill and he was asked
to pay amount by 03:00 p.m. Since complainant was
not willing to pay bribe, he went to Anti Corruption
Bureau and lodged report. The trap was arranged and
was successful.
iii. Allegations against accused no.2 are that at the
relevant time, he was passing through the table of
accused no.1 and was asked by accused no.1 to pick
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:02:41 :::
apeal.39.00.jud.doc 4
up those notes. Accused no.2 picked up the currency
notes and kept in the pocket. The allegations against
accused no.2 are that he abetted commission of
offence of demand and acceptance of money by
accused no.1.
iv. Prosecution examined in all five witnesses in support
of its case. Considering the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and submissions made on behalf of the
parties, Trial Court came to the conclusion that charge
against both the accused has been proved by the
prosecution and in consequence thereof they were
convicted as stated above.
04] Heard Shri Mahesh Rai, learned Counsel for appellant
and Ms. T.H. Udeshi, learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused
evidence of prosecution witnesses. On careful scrutiny of the
evidence, this Court for the below mentioned reasons is of the
view that prosecution could not prove the charge of abatement
against accused no.2 (since deceased) and, therefore, accused
no.2 ought to have been acquitted by the Trial Court.
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:02:41 :::
apeal.39.00.jud.doc 5
05] PW-1 complainant-Vasant Mane is the star witness.
He stated that when he went to the table of accused no.1,
accused no.2 was standing nearby. He was to pay the amount
to accused no.1. That time, accused no.1 called accused no.2
and asked him to pick up the notes kept by the complainant on
a piece of paper on the table. It appears from the evidence of
complainant and panch-witnesses that accused no.2 picked up
the notes and kept in the pocket. There is no whisper in the
entire evidence of complainant, panch-witnesses or the head of
raiding party that accused no.2, at any point of time, abetted
alleged acceptance or demand of money by accused no.1. In the
absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that charge against
accused no.2 has been legally proved by the prosecution.
06] In the above premise, since offence against accused
no.2 is not established, appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence,
the following order :
ORDER
i. Criminal Appeal No.39/2000 is allowed.
ii. Impugned judgment and order of conviction passed
on 14/01/2000 by the Special Judge (A.C.), Nagpur
in Special Case No.17/1989 against accused no.2-
Ramesh Gajanan Dange (since deceased) is
quashed and set aside.
iii. Accused no.2 shall be treated as acquitted of the
offences for which he was charged with.
iv. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the legal heirs of
deceased accused no.2.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
*sdw
