State Of Maharashtra vs Kashinath Zinguji Solanke
2017 Latest Caselaw 2792 Bom

Judgment

                                                                 apeal270.99 47

                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.270 OF 1999

The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S. Khamgaon City,
District Buldhana.                                       ..... Appellant.

                                ::   VERSUS   ::

Kashinath Zinguji Solanke,
Aged 38 years, Patwari Halka,
No.48, Kolori, R/o Khamgaon,
District Buldhana.                                  ..... Respondent.

==============================================================
          Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl.P.P. for the Appellant/State.
          None for the Respondent.
==============================================================


                              CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                              DATE     : JUNE 6, 2017.



ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By the present appeal, the State is before the

Court since it is aggrieved by judgment and order of

acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Khamgaon

.....2/-

Judgment

apeal270.99 47

dated 22.3.1999 in Special Anti Corruption Case No.5 of

1994, by which learned Judge of the Court below

acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable

under Sections 161, 165, and 201 of the Indian Penal

Code and under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. I have heard learned Additional Public

Prosecutor Shri R.S. Nayak for the appellant/State

extensively. Learned counsel for the respondent chose

not to remain present before the Court when the appeal

is taken up for its final hearing.

3. The respondent, at the relevant time, was a

Talathi. According to the charge, the respondent being

Talathi of village Kolori in Revenue Sub Division,

Khamgaon accepted Rs.500/- on 14.1.1996 at Khamgaon

.....3/-

Judgment

apeal270.99 47

from PW1 Shamrao Tulshiram Kawalkar as a

gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive

for doing a favour to do an official act, i.e. recording

mutation.

4. The complaint was filed with the Bureau of

Anti Corruption on 13.1.1986 (Exhibit 19). According to

the prosecution, the said complaint was lodged by PW1

Shamrao Kawalkar since he was not ready to give bribe

to the respondent as demanded by him. The sum and

substance of the complaint is, the respondent demanded

Rs.1,000/- from the complainant for handing over 7/12

extracts of his fields in three difference names.

5. After recording the complaint, PW6 the

Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption

Bureau Shri Prakash Bona Rade decided to lay a trap

.....4/-

Judgment

apeal270.99 47

on respondent on 14.1.1986. Accordingly, he called PW2

Shri Kisan Damodhar Dandage and Extension Officer

Shri Manohar Giri to act as panchas. The pre-trap

panchanama was recorded. Thereafter, as per the

prosecution case, on the day of the incident, the

raiding party proceeded towards the house of the

respondent. As per the prosecution case, the

respondent demanded amount and which was paid to

him and after getting pre-determined signal, raiding

party caught hold the respondent. The Court below,

after appreciating the case of the prosecution, and

acquitted the respondent for the offences for which he

was charged. It is to be seen, whether the impugned

judgment suffers from any perversity or the Court

below has not considered any available evidence on

record?

.....5/-

Judgment

apeal270.99 47

6. After hearing learned Additional Public

Prosecutor Shri R.S. Nayak, it is clear that the entire

evidence, adduced by the prosecution, is considered by

the Court below. Therefore, it is clear that the

impugned judgment does not suffer from the vice of

non-consideration of available evidence on record.

7. The respondent, at the relevant time, was a

Talathi. It is not in dispute that his Appointing

Authority is the Collector. In the present case, the

prosecution has examined PW3 Sub Divisional Officer at

Khamgaon Wasantrao Ajabrao Raut as sanctioning

Authority. The sanction to prosecute the respondent is

at Exhibit 70 and the author of the same is PW3

Wasantrao Raut.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

.....6/-

Judgment

apeal270.99 47

Nayak fairly states that the Court below was right in

holding that the appointing Authority of the respondent

was the Collector and not the Sub Divisional Officer.

The Court below has considered in extenso the relevant

provisions of Sections 7(4) and 13(4) of the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code, 1966 in respect of sanction order

Exhibit 70. The Court below, in my view, has rightly

reached to the conclusion that the Appointing Authority

of the respondent was the Collector and not PW3 the

Sub Divisional Officer and, therefore, it is clear that

PW3 was not competent to remove the respondent from

office and thereby sanction order Exhibit 70 was not

valid sanction and no fault can be attributed in respect

of the finding in that behalf recorded by the Court

below.

.....7/-

Judgment

apeal270.99 47

9. On merits, the Court below has, in detail,

appreciated the evidence of PW1 complainant Shamrao

Kawalkar. In the examination-in-chief itself, the

complainant admitted that on 31.12.1985 the respondent

came to his house and handed over 7/12 extracts

indicating separate names to complainant Shamrao and

demanded Rs.1,000/- which the complainant was not

able to pay on the said day. Thus, from the evidence

itself it is clear that on the said day 7/12 extracts were

already handed over to the complainant without

receiving or accepting any gratification or

remuneration.

10. As per the prosecution case, on the day of

'Til-Sankrant' i.e. 14.1.1986, the respondent accepted

Rs.500/- for Khatepustika. Again, the evidence of

.....8/-

Judgment

apeal270.99 47

complainant shows that on the said day, the respondent

informed the complainant that though he has received

amount of Rs.1,000/- in the year 1983, in view of transfer

of the superior officer, the work of the complainant was

remained to be done. However, this time his work will

be done. The Court below, in my view, has correctly

reached to the conclusion that there was no

corroboration to the evidence of the complainant from

the independent witnesses.

11. A perusal of the judgment passed by the

Court below shows that it does not suffer from any

infirmity in respect of appreciation of the evidence nor

the approach of the Court below is perverse while

acquitting the respondent. Therefore, in my view, the

present case filed by the State needs to be dismissed by

.....9/-

Judgment

apeal270.99 47

upholding the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the

criminal appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-