State Of Maharashtra vs Prabhakar Narayanrao Raibole And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2543 Bom

                                              1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2003



Appellant       :       State of Maharashtra, through Deputy 

                        Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption

                        Bureau, Amravati

                        versus

Respondents :           1)  Prabhakar Narayanrao Raibole, aged about

2) Shirish Devisingh Rathod, aged about 25

years, PSI

Both of Police Station, Mangrul Dastgir,

District Amravati

Ms Nivedita Mehta, Addl. Public Prosecutor for appellant-State

Shri S. G. Joshi, Advocate for respondents

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 15th May 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

24.9.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special (ACB)

Case No. 9 of 1989 whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted of

the offences punishable under Sections 161, 165 (k) read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (1) (d) punishable under Section 5 (2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State

contends that the demand and acceptance in this case has been duly proved.

According to her, appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution made by the

Additional Sessions Judge is perverse and, therefore, this is a fit case for

interference. However, Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents seriously

disputes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. He submits that

no perversity could be noticed in the impugned judgment and order as the

conclusions drawn by the Additional Sessions Judge are based on the evidence

available on record.

3. On going through the impugned judgment and order and record of

the case, I find that there is no merit in the arguments of learned Additional

Public Prosecutor and there is substance in the arguments of learned counsel for

the respondents.

4. This is a trap case where respondent no. 1 was allegedly caught

red-handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs. 150/- at the behest and on

behalf of respondent no. 2. At the relevant time, respondent no. 2 was posted

as Police Sub-Inspector at Police Station, Mangrul Dastagir and respondent no. 1

was posted as Police Constable. It was the case of the prosecution that a bicycle

belonging to the complainant was deposited with Police Station by some

unknown person. Complainant wanted to have custody of that bicycle. But for

that, a bribe amount of Rs. 150/- was demanded by respondent no. 2 from the

complainant and the complainant was asked to fulfill the demand by handing

over the bribe amount to respondent no. 1. However, it is seen from the

prosecution evidence, on the crucial aspect of demand of bribe, the complainant

turned hostile. Complainant PW 1 Nana Pawar in his cross-examination

admitted that it were his friend Moreshwar Shirpure who had suggested to him

that on getting back the custody of the bicycle, the complainant should pay

amount of Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- to respondent no. 2. The complainant admits

that the demand of money was not made by respondent no. 2 and he did not

ask respondent no. 1 to accept the amount. The complainant also admits that

when the bribe amount was kept in the pocket of respondent no. 1, respondent

no. 2 was not present there and was present in his bungalow. In these

circumstances, Moreshwar's evidence became crucial, but unfortunately,

Moreshwar was not examined as a witness by the prosecution. Therefore, the

admissions given by the complainant would assume importance and which

throw entire prosecution case into a mire of doubt. Such being the nature of

evidence, one can only say that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no

other alternative than to give benefit of doubt to both the respondents which he

seems to have done and rightly so. The inferences drawn by learned Additional

Sessions Judge are entirely based upon the prosecution evidence and cannot be

seen as not at all arising from the facts established on record. The view taken

by the learned trial Judge is possible and when this happens, the scope of

interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal is reduced to zero

level. There is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.

5. The appeal stands dismissed.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi