Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Vinayak S/O Mahadeorao Dhurat on 11 May, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
Apeal22.03 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22 OF 2003.
APPELLANT: State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENT: Vinayak Mahadeorao Dhurat,
aged about 51 years, Occu: Asstt.
District Inspector Land Record
Office, Chandrapur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.B.M.Lonare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr.M.B.Naidu, 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 Special Judge,
Chandrapur in Special Case No.8 of 1993, thereby acquitting the
respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)
(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. It is the case of prosecution that in the year 1993
respondent/accused was working as Assistant District Inspector of Land
Records, Chandrapur, The first informant Deepak Tapase who had
purchased house by registered sale-deed wanted to record the house
property in his name. As such, he had made an application to District
Inspector of Land Record, Chandrapur for the said purpose. It is further
case of prosecution that for the said purpose accused had demanded an
amount of Rs.300/- on 7th January, 1993. It is further case of
prosecution that again on 1st February, 1993 the demand was repeated.
It is prosecution case that as complainant was not willing to pay bribe,
he filed complaint to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau. Accordingly,
a trap was conducted by the raiding party in which accused was caught
raid handed accepting an amount of Rs.300/-. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused.
3. The charge was framed and readover to the accused, to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the
accused was that the said work was not with him but work was with
one Bhimrao Gaikwad, Surveyor, and he had nothing to do with that
matter.
4. Learned trial Judge found that though in the first
Information Report the first informant had stated about the demand, in
his deposition there was not mention regarding the first demand of
Rs.300/- or also with regard to the second of Rs.300/-. The learned
trial Judge, therefore, found that the prosecution had even failed to
prove the demand.
5. Learned trial Judge has further found that though according
to the first informant all the while his friend Gopalrao Amrutkar was
with him and though Gopalrao was an eyewitness, he has not been
examined by the prosecution.
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
