Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sudhakar Ganpat Kharche on 1 February, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:2130
-1- als-9-18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.9 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra
Anti Corruption Bureau,
through Police Inspector,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT
VERSUS
Sudhakar Ganpat Kharche,
Age : 57 years,
R/o : Shanti Nagar, Bhusawal,
District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT
...
APP for the Applicant - State : Mr. S. M. Ganachari
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. S. S. Panale
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 30th JANUARY, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 01st FEBRUARY,2024
ORDER :
1. State has preferred instant leave application praying to
grant leave to fle appeal against judgment and order dated
05.10.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhusawal,
District Jalgaon in Special (ACB) Case No. 10/2014 thereby
acquitting present respondent from ofence under Sections 7,
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
-2- als-9-18
2. Learned APP submitted that prosecution was launched
against present respondent, who was working as a Circle
Officer for demanding illegal bribe / gratifcation of Rs.20,000/-
for carrying out entries in the revenue record. That, he
negotiated and brought down the bribe fgure to Rs. 15,000/-.
Finally complaint was lodged, trap was arranged and
verifcation panchanama was drawn regarding demand on the
strength of complaint lodged by informant. That, trap was
successful and accused was apprehended with tainted
currencies and therefore learned APP submits that ofence was
clearly made out. However, learned trial Judge has acquitted
the accused without assigning proper reasons and so he seeks
leave.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
would submit that there was no demand. Rather complainant
himself had taken steps to deliberately trap the accused.
Complainant had called accused at his own house. It is pointed
out that there was no convincing evidence. Demand was not
proved and even there was no proper sanction and hence,
according to him, learned trial Judge committed no error and so
he prays for dismissing the leave application.
-3- als-9-18
4. After considering the submissions of both the sides and on
going through the papers, it seems that present respondent
accused was officiating as a Circle Officer. Informant fled
complaint alleging that after transaction of sale-deed, he had
approached accused, who was a Circle Officer, for entering the
transaction in the revenue record and for that bribe was
demanded. So he lodged complaint on 12.01.2012 and ACB
authorities arranged trap by arranging panchas.
5. It transpires that accused was apprehended on
17.01.2012 after accepting bribe amount and therefore he was
arrested, charge-sheeted and tried. Upon trial, he seems to be
acquitted by the Special Judge and hence this leave application.
6. It seems that acquittal is on the ground of failure to prove
demand and for want of proper sanction.
7. Prima-facie, on going through the judgment, it seems that
in all fve witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The
crucial evidence is of complainant and shadow pancha.
Complainant is examined as P.W. 1 and he has deposed about
Rs.20,000/- demanded by accused for taking entry of sale
-4- als-9-18
transaction on record and therefore, P.W.1 lodged complaint
Exhibit 18. He claims that he and shadow pancha Nimbhore
together went to comply the demand and paid the amount
which was accepted.
His cross shows that it is the complainant who went to the
house of accused. He further admitted that in the house of
accused he did not talk to him and merely kept the money on
the swing.
8. P.W.2 - shadow pancha also deposed about accompanying
complainant to the house of accused. But in chief itself he has
stated that when raiding party came running after receiving
signal, accused threw the currency notes outside the compound
of the house.
While under cross, he has admitted that he was not party
to the conversation of demand of bribe. He has also not heard
conversation on voice recorder. He denied that complainant
making any call to the accused. He also answered that there
were talks only between accused and complainant and he
himself did not have any talk with accused. His cross also
shows that this witness was party to the Departmental Enquiry
against the accused.
-5- als-9-18
9. Resultantly, it is emerging that alleged conversation of
demand has not been proved. CDR / SDR is also not before the
Court. Therefore, very crucial aspect of demand has not been
cogently proved.
10. As pointed out, sanction also is not in accordance with law
and therefore, there are material shortfalls in the case of
prosecution which has resulted in acquittal. No good ground is
made so as to grant leave. How the impugned judgment is
perverse or illegal is also not pointed out and therefore no
fruitful purpose would be served by granting leave. No case
made out on merit to grant leave, I proceed to pass the
following order :-
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
shp
Signed by: Surekha H. Patil
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/02/2024 11:02:01
