Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah. Thru Anti ... vs Ramchandra S/O Gokulprasad ... on 11 May, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
Apeal202.07 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.202 OF 2007.
APPELLANT: State of Maharashtra,
through Anti Corruption Bureau,
Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1. Ramchandra Gokulprasad Kashyap,
aged about 40 years, Occu: P.H.C.B.No.
436, Distt.Nagpur. (Dead)
2. Kailash Namdeorao Ingole,
aged about 41 years, Occu: P.C.B.No.1329,
Tq.Parshiwani, Distt.Ngpur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.B.M.Lonare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr.Amol Mardikar, Advocate for the respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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 Judge, Special Court,
Nagpur in Special Case No.4 of 2001, dated 16 th March, 2007, 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. Accused/respondent no.1 is reported to be dead and appeal
stands abated against him.
3. It is the case of prosecution that deceased accused no.1 was
working as Police Head Constable and accused no.2 was working as
Police Constable. At the relevant time they were bid Jamadar and
constable at Paoni and Hiwra Bazar under the jurisdiction of police
Station Deolapar. The first informant Bansilal Pardhi was dealing in
business of forest wood and Mohawa flowers. It is prosecution case that
accused had threatened complainant Bansilal that they would book him
in theft case if he did not pay them an amount of Rs.7000/- which was
subsequently reduced to Rs.4000/-. It is the prosecution case that out
of that, initially, an amount of Rs.2000/- was paid on 24 th May, 2000
and Rs.1000/- was paid on 30th May, 2000. It is further prosecution
case that on 26th June, 2000 accused demanded balance amount of
Rs.1000/-. The complainant assured that he would pay Rs.500/- on
Wednesday.
4. It is further case of prosecution that complainant was not
willing to pay bribe and therefore he approached to the office of Anti
Corruption Bureau and filed complaint against the accused.
Accordingly, a trap was conducted by the raiding party in which
accused no.1 accepted the amount and kept it in his left side pant
pocket. However, when the members of the raiding party arrived he
managed to take out the amount and put in his mouth and swallowed
the same. As he did not open the mouth, some fist blows were given
on his face. Still he did no respond, he was taken to Public Health
Center, Deolapar. Dr.Madhukar Gutte on duty took accused no.1 in the
examination room and asked him to open his mouth. As nothing was
visible, doctor gave him water and asked him to vomit but accused no.1
did not respond. Thereafter, accused no.1 was referred to Medical
College Nagpur. In the meantime, attendant inform Dr.Madhukar Gutte
that accused no.1 has vomitted something so Dr.Gutte came back to
examination room and saw some ball like substance in the tray which
was handed over to P.C.Anil.
5. Learned trial Judge found that the evidence of the
complainant was contradictory with that of Officer who had laid trap
and as such, it was not safe to place reliance on such evidence. Learned
trial Judge further found that complainant was convicted in prohibition
cases and was involved in many other criminal cases and as such
conviction on the basis of his sole testimony would not be prudent.
6. Learned trial Judge also found that defence of the accused
that acceptance of amount of Rs.500/- was towards repayment of loan
was substantiated by panch witnesses Mr.Khorge and Mr.Mirashe as
well as sanctioning authority Mr.Ramanand.
7. 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
