Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah Thr ... vs Banduraj S/O Amrut Dudhe on 18 May, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-apeal134.09.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.134 OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Chandrapur. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
Banduraj s/o. Amrut Dudhe,
R/o. Ambedkar Ward, Sawali,
Tah. Sawali, Distt. Chandrapur. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri Sanjeev Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 18
MAY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order
dated 25th November, 2008, delivered by the Special Judge Chandrapur,
in Sessions Case No.2/2002, whereby respondent has been acquitted of
the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. In September 2001, the respondent was working as a Line
J-apeal134.09.odt 2/4
Helper with M.S.E.B. Sawali, District Chandrapur and was a public
servant. A few days prior to 7.9.2001, he had visited the house of the
complainant Mehru Dheklu Mohurle and inspected the electric supply
line to his house and electric meter installed in his house. He informed
the complainant that the seal of the meter was tampered with and the
meter was not showing correct recording of the use of electricity. It is
alleged that the respondent threatened the complainant with taking of an
action unless the complainant obliged the respondent by paying him an
amount of Rs.1,000/-. The complainant after negotiations, agreed to pay
Rs.500/- to the respondent for the said work. But, the complainant was
really unwilling to pay the bribe to the respondent and, therefore, he
lodged a report with A.C.B. Office, Chandrapur. After completing
necessary formalities, a trap was set for catching the respondent
red-handed by the personnel of the A.C.B. Office. On 7 th September,
2001, at about 12.45 p.m. in the office of respondent, the respondent
demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant in
the presence of a shadow witness or a panch witness. However, on
getting the hint of his being caught red-handed, the respondent threw
away the tainted currency notes, which fell on nearby dunghill.
Nevertheless, the respondent was detained by the personnel of the A.C.B.
Office and was subjected to search as well as the routine chemical check.
Meanwhile, the tainted currency notes were also recovered from the
J-apeal134.09.odt 3/4
heap of dung. Thus, the trap was found to be successful and, therefore,
necessary formalities including drawing of panchanamas were
completed. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.
3. The respondent was prosecuted and tried for the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. On merits of the case, the learned Special Judge found that
the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and,
therefore, acquitted the respondent of the said offences by judgment
rendered on 25th November, 2008. It is this judgment which is under
challenge in the present appeal.
4. I have heard learned A.P.P. for the State. None is present for
the respondent. I have carefully gone through the record of the case
including the impugned judgment and order.
5. Although it is the contention of the learned A.P.P. for the
State that the impugned judgment is illegal and based upon a perverse
view, upon careful consideration of the record of the case, I do not find it
to be so. This is a case in which the key witnesses of the prosecution i.e.
PW 1 Mehru Dheklu Mohurle, the complainant, and PW 2 Omprakash
Jagdish Sargar, shadow witness, both have turned hostile completely.
They have asserted that neither any demand of bribe was made by the
respondent nor any amount was accepted by him. Such evidence of the
J-apeal134.09.odt 4/4
key prosecution witnesses would only show that the prosecution failed in
its mission against the respondent. The case is further worsened from
the view point of the prosecution by non-recovery of the tainted currency
notes from the person of the respondent. The tainted currency notes
were recovered from the heap of dung. Recovery of the tainted currency
notes from an unexpected place would require some sort of
corroboration from the evidence of the complainant as well as shadow
witness. But, as stated earlier, both these witnesses are not supporting
the prosecution case on the point of demand and acceptance of the bribe.
Such corroboration being absent in the instant case, learned Special
Judge had no option other than to find that prosecution could not prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. No illegality
nor any perversity could be noticed in the impugned judgment and
order. This is not a fit case for interfering with the same.
6. The appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE
okMksns
