State Of Mah.Thr.Anti Corruption ... vs Baburao Ganpat Adhav & Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 2508 Bom

   Apeal277.01                                     1
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.277 OF 2001.


   APPELLANT:                             State of Maharashtra,
                                          through the Anti Corruption Bureau,
                                          Buldhana, Distt.Buldhana.


                                              : VERSUS :


   RESPONDENTS:     1.  Baburao Ganpat Adhav,
                        Sr.Clerk, aged 40 years, Class-III,
                        Office of the Asstt.Registrar, Sahakari
                        Sanstha, Motala, Distt.Buldhana.
                        (appeal abated since dead)

                                   2. Shri Vasant Ganpat Patil,
                                      aged 42 years, Secretary Class III,
                                      Gramseva Sahakari Society, Motala, 
                                      R/o Motala Distt.Buldhana,         
                                  
   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   Ms.N.P.Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
   None for the respondent.
   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                   CORAM:     B.R.GAVAI, J.

                                                    DATED:     11th MAY, 2017.


   ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The main accused i.e. accused no.1 is reported to be dead.

As such, appeal stands abated insofar as respondent/accused no.1 is

concerned.

2. By way of present appeal, appellant/State takes an exception

to the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court,

Buldhana in Special Anti Corruption Case No.2 of 1994, thereby

acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under

Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would reveal that

the charges against respondent/accused no.2 are basically that of

abetting the main accused i.e. accused no.1.

4. In any case, perusal of judgment and order passed by the

learned trial judge would reveal that the defence as taken by accused

no.1 in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was plausible. The learned trial Judge has found

that it was doubtful whether accused no.1 was present in the room

when the amount was handed over to the accused no.2. The learned

trial judge has also found that the defence of accused no.1 that the

amount given by complainant was towards recovery of loan amount of

the complainant's father was plausible defence.

5. 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