The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Buldana vs Sudhakar Uttamrao Tarwade
2017 Latest Caselaw 2571 Bom

        J-apeal586.03.odt                                                                                               1/4  


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No.586 OF 2003


        The State of Maharashtra,
        through P.S.O. Shegaon,
        District Buldhana.                                                          :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

        Sudhakar Uttamrao Tarwade,
        Aged about 45 years,
        R/o. Shegaon, District Buldhana                                              :      RESPONDENT


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri S.B. Bissa,  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 10th July, 2003 passed by the Special Judge and Additional

Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldhana, in Special Anti Corruption

Case No.1/2002, thereby acquitting the respondent of the offences

punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

2. The respondent was serving as a "Patwari" of Shegaon,

Tq. Shegaon, District Buldhana in the year 2001 and was a public

J-apeal586.03.odt 2/4

servant. On account of death of father of the complainant, Shridhar

Gotiram Shegokar, the complainant was required to mutate the

agricultural land standing in the name of his father, in his name and,

therefore, on 13th July, 2001, he approached the respondent. The

complainant made a request for mutating the land bearing Gat No.768 to

the extent of 2 R situated at village Shegaon, in his name. But, it was

alleged, the respondent demanded an amount of Rs.500/- from the

complainant for doing official work. There were some negotiations

between the two and ultimately respondent agreed to accept Rs.300/- as

illegal gratification for performing the official work of mutating the entry

in the name of the complainant. The complainant, however, was

unwilling to satisfy the illegal demand of the respondent. He, therefore,

lodged a report with the Office of the Anti Corruption Bureau. The

members of the Anti Corruption Bureau decided to lay a trap for catching

red-handed the respondent. After completing all necessary formalities, a

trap was set by the personnel of the A.C.B. Office on 6.8.2008 and the

respondent fell into the trap. An amount of Rs.300/-, consisting of 3

currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each was recovered from the

shirt pocket of the respondent. Necessary panchanamas were drawn out.

Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of the

investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent.

3. The respondent was prosecuted and tried for the offences

J-apeal586.03.odt 3/4

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

prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt its case against the

respondent and, therefore, acquitted him of the said offences by

judgment and order delivered on 10 th July, 2003. Not being satisfied

with the same, the State is before this Court 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. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned judgment is

erroneous and illegal as it does not properly appreciate the facts

established on record. In support of the argument, learned A.P.P. has

taken me through evidence of the key witness, PW 1 Shridhar, the

complainant, in the present case.

6. On going through the record of the case, as well as the

impugned judgment and order, however, I find that a different picture

emerges. The evidence available on record clearly shows that there is a

doubt about the demand of bribe having been made by the respondent.

It also establishes the fact quite in unequivocal terms that no work of

taking of mutation entry was pending with the concerned Talathi on the

date of trap which was 6.8.2001, as Articles 4 and 7 of the relevant

registers disclosed that the mutation entry vide Sr.No.1823 (Exh.-20)

J-apeal586.03.odt 4/4

was taken in the registers on 15.7.2001 itself. As if this was not enough,

the notices regarding taking of such mutation entry were also issued.

What had remained in the matter was only certification to be done by the

Revenue Circle Inspector, the authority competent to do so. This

evidence of prosecution shows that there was no work which had

remained pending with the respondent and if that be so, it was rightly

concluded by the learned Special Judge that there was no reason for the

respondent to make any demand of bribe amount of Rs.300/- from the

complainant. Then, in his cross-examination, the complainant has given

a clear cut admission to the effect that no demand was made by the

respondent and that it were the complainant who had thrust the tainted

currency notes in the shirt pocket of the respondent. The complainant

has also admitted that since there was some delay in his work, he was

not happy and, therefore, he went to the office of A.C.B at Buldhana and

lodged the report.

7. In the circumstances, neither any illegality nor perversity

could be seen in the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge.

There is no warrant for this Court to interfere with the impugned

judgment and order. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. The appeal stands dismissed.

JUDGE okMksns