The State Of Maharashtra vs Devidas Ramchandra Wagh
2017 Latest Caselaw 2389 Bom

                                                                 cria562.02
                                        1


                                        
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.562 OF 2002

 The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Dy.S.P.,
 Anti Corruption Bureau,
 Jalgaon.
                                 ...APPELLANT 
        VERSUS             

 Shri Devidas Ramchandra Wagh,
 Age-45 years, Occu:Service,
 R/o-Jalgaon.   
                                 ...RESPONDENT

                      ...
    Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for  Appellant.
    None present for Respondent.       
                      ...

               CORAM:   S.S. SHINDE, J.

DATE : 8TH MAY 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal is directed against the

Judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2002, passed by

Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge,

Jalgaon in Special Case No.12 of 1997, thereby

acquitting Respondent -Devidas Ramchandra Wagh,

cria562.02

from the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)

(d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act.

2. Brief facts leading for filing present

Appeal as per the prosecution case are as under:-

. Original complainant Pradeep Baburao

Bhamre, resident of Jamner was desirous to start

the business of plastic moulding and accordingly

for the said purpose, he had taken loan from the

financial institution. He wanted 'no objection

certificate' from the Pollution Control Board so

as to start the business of plastic moulding under

the scheme sponsored by the Government of India.

Accordingly, in order to get no objection

certificate from the Pollution Control Board,

complainant approached the office of the Pollution

Control Board with all the required papers. He

requested the concerned authority to issue said

certificate forthwith so as to avoid further loss

cria562.02

of time. It is the case of the prosecution that

when the complainant approached the concerned

authority, the accused, who is employee in the

said office, demanded Rs.5,000/- towards bribe.

Complainant was dissatisfied with such demand and

therefore on 17th February, 1997, he had been to

the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau and there

he lodged the report. On the basis of said report,

trap was arranged by the Officers of Anti

Corruption Bureau. Two independent panchas were

summoned. Thereafter necessary preparation for

laying the tray was done. It is the case of the

prosecution that the accused, Respondent herein

accepted the amount from the complainant and to

that effect necessary panchnama was drawn. As per

the prosecution case, trap was successful, in as

much as the Respondent accepted the amount from

the complainant and thereafter trap was laid and

accused was found accepting the amount. After

necessary investigation, charge-sheet came to be

filed in the Special Court.

cria562.02

3. After filing charge-sheet, charge was

framed and prosecution laid evidence. Complainant

Pradeep Bhamre was examined as PW-2. During his

examination-in-chief, he stated the manner in

which he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau,

thereafter necessary preparation was made to lay

the trap and thereafter as demanded by the

accused, the amount was given to accused and to

that effect necessary panchnama was drawn. So far

actual demand and acceptance of amount is

concerned, it is stated by the complainant in his

examination-in-chief that he was to give the

amount to accused and in turn the accused was

supposed to give no objection certificate signed

by his superior. When actually he was supposed to

give amount to the accused, he gave specific

signal to the officers of the Anti Corruption

Bureau. Before amount was given to the accused,

complainant PW-2 has stated details about the

conversation with the accused. It is stated by

cria562.02

PW-2 that when he went in the morning session on

the day of trap, the accused stated him that

superior officer was not present and therefore the

complainant was asked to come in the afternoon

session and accordingly between 5.30 to 6.00 p.m.

the complainant went to the office of the accused.

PW-2 has further stated details about what

transpired in between 5.30 to 6.00 p.m. So far

actual demand is concerned, PW-2 has stated that

accused asked whether the complainant has brought

money. Then accused took the complainant to other

room and again inquired about money. Thereafter

the complainant asked accused whether he is

supposed to pay money to accused or any other

employee of the office. However accused asked the

complainant to pay money to him. Thereafter

complainant took out the amount from the left side

pocket from his shirt and gave it to the accused.

Accused took that amount by his left hand and kept

the same in the left side pocket of his pant. He

specifically stated that panch Dusane (PW-3) was

cria562.02

also there in inner side room with him and the

demand and acceptance was taken place in presence

of Dusane. Thereafter complainant came out of the

said inner room and gave signal to the raiding

party and thereafter trap was laid. PW-2

complainant has stated further details about the

manner in which trap was laid. Even in his cross-

examination, PW-2 has stated that Panch Dusane

i.e. PW-3 was present when actually accused

demanded the amount and as a matter fact, amount

was handed over to accused. Upon careful perusal

of the examination-in-chief of PW-2, and also the

cross-examination, it is abundantly clear that

Panch Dusane was present inside the room when the

amount was demanded and accepted by the accused.

He has also stated that accused was not the

authority to issue such no objection certificate

but superior authority was supposed to issue no

objection certificate.

4. Upon careful perusal of the evidence of

cria562.02

PW-3 Ravindra Jagannath Dusane, panch witness, in

his evidence he has stated minute details about

the manner in which they prepared themselves,

thereafter preparation for trap was made and they

visited the office of the accused and there was

demand and acceptance. PW-3 has stated in his

examination-in-chief that there was demand by the

accused and amount of Rs.300/- was accepted by the

accused and was found in left side pocket of the

pant of the accused. However, in his cross-

examination, PW-3 has not supported the

prosecution case, in as much as he stated that

when the accused and complainant went inside the

inner room, he was sitting outside on the chair.

After sometime Bhamre i.e. Complainant came out of

that room and went to main door and made some

signals and thereafter police squad came there.

PW-3 has specifically stated that he did not know

what happened in the inner room. Even he has

denied that he has stated in his evidence that the

accused demanded the amount from the complainant

cria562.02

and accepted the amount from the complainant.

Therefore his admission that he did not go in the

inner room and as such he had no occasion either

to witness the demand or acceptance, entire

prosecution case should fail.

5. The complainant Pradeep Baburao Bhamre

(PW-2) on more than one occasion has made

reference to Shri Dusane i.e. PW-3 in his evidence

and in clear words stated the presence of PW-3

Dusane in inner room when the amount was demanded

and accepted by the accused. Therefore, the

evidence of PW-3 Dusane and his admissions in

cross-examination has demolished the theory of the

prosecution of demand by the accused. Apart from

the fact that the prosecution failed to prove the

demand, it has come on record that Respondent i.e.

accused Devidas Ramdas Wagh, was not the ultimate

authority to issue the no objection certificate

and his superior officer was empowered to issue

such no objection certificate.

cria562.02

6. In the light of evidence of PW-2 and

PW-3, and discussion about the evidence of PW-2

and PW-3, I have minutely perused the findings

recorded by the trial Court to find out whether

those findings are in consonance with the evidence

on record or there is any perversity. Upon careful

exercise, I find that the findings recorded by the

trial Court are in consonance with the evidence

brought on record. The view taken by the trial

Court lends support from the authoritative

pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of

State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao

Wankhede1. Therefore, since the prosecution could

not prove the demand, which is sine qua non for

establishing the case by the prosecution, in my

opinion, the view taken by the trial Court is

plausible and in consonance with the evidence

brought on record. Even if for a moment it is

assumed that, an another view is possible on the

1 (2009) 15 S.C.C. 200

cria562.02

strength of evidence brought on record by the

prosecution, the same is no ground to interfere in

the order of acquittal when plausible view has

been taken by the trial Court.

7. In the light of discussion herein above,

the inevitable conclusion is that the Appeal filed

by the State shall fail. Accordingly the Criminal

Appeal stands dismissed.

[S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/MAY17