State Of Mah. Thr. Dy. Supdt. Of ... vs Govind S/O Tarachand Turkar
2017 Latest Caselaw 2503 Bom

   Apeal311.11                                     1
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.311 OF 2011.


   APPELLANT:                             State of Maharashtra,
                                          through Dy.S.P.Nagpur,
                                          through Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur.


                                              : VERSUS :


   RESPONDENT:          Govind Tarachand Turkar,
                        age 41 years, Occu: Service,
                        R/o Somalwada, Wardha Road,
                        Nagpur.
                                                 
   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   Mr.B.M.Lonare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
   Mr.Amol Mardikar, Advocate for the respondent.
   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                                                   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 Additional Sessions

Judge, Special Court, Nagpur in Special Case No.10 of 2006, dated 23 rd

February, 2011, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused of the

offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)

(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. It is the case of prosecution that the accused in his capacity

as Stenographer to the Sub-divisional Officer had demanded and

accepted Rs.50/- on 11th February, 2005 and Rs.100/- on 15th February

2005 from the complainant as an illegal gratification for issuing copy of

order passed in Revenue Case No.C-16/LMA-22/96-97.

3. The defence of the accused was that though he had not

disputed that he had accepted an amount of Rs.100/-, the said amount

was towards 20 Flags i.e. Rs.5/- towards each Flag, which was given to

the accused for selling out on the eve of "Flag Day".

4. The learned Trial Judge has found that the complainant had

categorically stated in his testimony that accused had given him 20

Flags, each of Rs.5/-, to sell out on account of "Flag Day" since he was

political worker, though complainant had denied that accused had

received Rs.100/- as the price of those Flags.

5. Learned trial Judge, from the evidence of PW 3 Ashok

Deoghare, Section Writer, has further found that said witness in his

cross-examination admitted that office of the Sub-Divisional Office had

received National Flags worth Rs.5000/- and those were distributed

amongst the clerks for sale. In this background, the learned trial Judge

found that the probability cannot be ruled out that the accused for

sending the record for certified copy or for satisfying the demand of

complainant for xerox copy must have forced the complainant to

purchase 20 Flags worth Rs.100/- from him. The learned trial Judge

further found that this probability becomes stronger since there is no

corroborative evidence in support of the complainant's version of earlier

payment of Rs.50/-.

6. 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