Bombay High Court
Suresh Khetan vs Cbi, Bsfc, Mumbai And Anr on 2 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 5 10-ia-341-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 341 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2023
Suresh Khetan ..Applicant
Versus
CBI, BSFC, Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Dhiraj Mirajkar a/w. Vikas Kapile a/w. Nipa Shah i/b. Mirajkar
and Associates for Applicant.
Mr. Aayush Kedia i/b. H. S. Venegavkar for CBI/Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.2.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 2 FEBRUARY 2023
PC :
1. The Applicant was the original accused No.2 in CBI
Special Case No.104 of 2009 before learned Special Judge (CBI),
Greater Bombay. Vide his Judgment and order dated 10/01/2023,
learned Trial Judge convicted the applicant for commission of
offence punishable U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD
BHASKAR (for short 'P.C.Act') r/w. Section 120B of the I.P.C. and Under
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2023.02.06
17:31:23
+0530 Gokhale
2 of 5 10-ia-341-23
sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. On both these counts
separately he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer
R.I. for six months.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused No.2 i.e. the
present applicant was working as an Inspector with the Income Tax
Department. He approached PW-6 Arun Patil and told him that
there was a complaint against him. PW-6 Arun Patil was in the
business of construction. He was one of the partners of a company
by name M/s. Aditya Enterprises. The applicant approached him
on 19/12/2008 and told him about that complaint. He gave phone
number of the accused No.1 Rajkumar Bhatia who was working as
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The applicant told PW-6
that he should meet accused No.1. Accordingly, PW-6 met him. It is
the prosecution case that, PW-3 Rajkumar Khushlani was the
partner of M/s. Aditya Enterprises. He was told by PW-6 Arun Patil
about what the applicant had told him. It is alleged that the
accused No.1 initially demanded bribe of Rs.35 lakhs and after
some negotiations it was brought down to Rs.15 lakhs. PW-3 and
3 of 5 10-ia-341-23
PW-6 did not want to pay that amount. They approached the C.B.I.
and lodged the complaint. A trap was laid on 21/01/2009. It is the
prosecution case that the applicant accepted the currency notes
sprinkled with phenolphthalein powder which were kept in news
paper packet which were also sprinkled with phenolphthalein
powder. The Applicant was caught. His left hand was dipped in
sodium carbonate solution. The liquid turned into pink colour. The
liquid was sent for chemical analysis which also confirmed the
presence of phenolphthalein powder. On these allegations, both
the accused were tried and ultimately convicted.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
C.A. report at Exhibit 96 shows that what was received by the
Chemical Analyzer's office was a bottle of colourless liquid and,
therefore, there is serious doubt whether the same solution was
sent to C.A. Apart from that, the chit on which the telephone
number of the accused No.1 was written and the original
complaint which was the starting point of all these allegations was
not produced in the court. He further submitted that the applicant
was on bail during trial and even after his conviction he was
4 of 5 10-ia-341-23
granted bail U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c.
4. Learned Special P. P. opposed this application. He
submitted that the colour of the liquid will not make any
difference as C.A. report was produced U/s.293 of the Cr.p.c. No
further efforts were taken by the defence to challenge that C.A.
report. He further submitted that the trap was successful and,
therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
5. I have considered these submissions. Both sides have
raised important issues which will have to be decided at the final
hearing stage of the Appeal. The applicant was on bail during trial.
The incident is old. The date of complaint is 19/01/2009. Even
after his conviction he is granted bail by the Trial Court U/s.389 of
the Cr.p.c. The Appeal is not likely to be decided within a short
period. Considering these aspects, the applicant can be granted
bail pending his Appeal.
6. Hence, the following order:
5 of 5 10-ia-341-23
ORDER
i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.70 of 2023, the Applicant is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in
the sum of Rs.50000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
ii) The Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
