Bombay High Court
Jagannath Shivram Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 January, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D.Naik
2024:BHC-AS:4672
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2007
Arjun Baban Jagdhane ...Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2007
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 814 OF 2023
Jagannath Shivram Jadhav ...Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
....
Mr. Ujwal Agandsurve Advocate for Appellant in Appeal No. 460 of
2007.
Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar Advocate for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
472 of 2007.
Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar APP for Respondent-State.
....
CORAM : PRAKASH D.NAIK, J.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 28th JULY 2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT : 05th JANUARY 2024
JUDGMENT:
-
1. The appellants are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 17 th
April 2007 passed by Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act
and Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 42
of 2002.
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.460 of 2007 was arraigned as
accused No.1 whereas appellant in Criminal Appeal No.472 of 2007 was
arraigned as accused No.2 in Special Case No. 42 of 2002. They are
referred to as accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the sake of brevity.
3. Accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section
7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for four years and pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. He is also
convicted for offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2)
of P.C. Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years
and pay fine of Rs.25,000/-.
4. Accused No.2 is convicted for offence punishable under Section 12 of
the P.C. Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year
and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. He has also acquitted for the offence under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
5. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
(i) On 7th February 2001 at about 06:30 p.m., four persons in civil dress
including accused No.1 visited the complainant's house and made inquiry
whether her brother-in-law Mohd. Nabi was in the house. The accused
No.1 disclosed his identity as Police Inspector.
(ii) The accused No.1 told complainant Roksana Banu to give amount of
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
Rs. 1 lakh to release Mohd. Nabi Qureshi. She shown her inability to pay it.
She was told to visit Vashi Railway Police Station on 8th February 2001.
(iii) On 8th February 2001, the complainant Ruksana Banu went and met
accused No.1. He again demanded Rs. 1 lakh. In the negotiations the bribe
amount was reduced to Rs.25,000/-. The complainant was told to bring the
amount on 10th February 2001.
(iv) The complainant was not willing to give the bribe amount. She
approached ACB. Complaint was lodged. Crime No.8 of 2001 was
registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(v) Investigation was conducted by Police Inspector Mausamkar. The
complainant arranged an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Panchas were summoned.
Raid was arranged. Pre-trap panchnama was recorded. On 10 th February
2001, raiding party proceeded towards Vashi Railway Police Station.
(vi) Panch witnesses and the complainant entered inside the police
station. They approached accused. At the same time, the complainant in
Crime No.7 of 2001 was also present at the police station along with
pancha. Accused demanded money and instructed to hand over the amount
to accused No.2.
(vii) The complainant instructed to hand over the amount to accused
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
No.2. It was accepted by him. The raiding party barged into police station
and apprehended the accused.
(viii) The complainant in C.R. No. 7 of 2001 hand over the amount. It was
accepted by accused No.2 on instructions of accused No.1. Accused were
apprehended. Investigation proceeded. Charge-sheet was filed.
6. Learned Advocate for accused No.1 submitted that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. The complaint is false. The version of
complainant is doubtful. It is contrary to the version of other witnesses.
The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case as the complainant
was apprehending that relative would be arrested in this case. There was
no demand of bribe by the appellant. The evidence on record discloses that
accused No.1 was not at the police station at the relevant time. The
documentary evidence falsifies the version of complainant. The version of
complainant is not corroborated by independent witnesses. The sanctioning
authority was not competent to accord sanction. The sanction order reflects
non-application of mind.
7. Learned Advocate for accused No.2 submitted that the accused No.2
has been made scapegoat in this case. There was no demand of bribe by
him. Assuming that, he has accepted money, the amount was allegedly
handed over to him. He had no reason to understand that it was bribe
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
money and for what purpose the money is handed over. He has no
knowledge that the accused No.1 has demanded bribe amount. Sanction
order suffers from non-application of mind.
8. Learned APP submitted that demand and acceptance is proved.
Accused No.2 has abetted accused No.1 in commission of crime.
Documentary evidence proved the charge against the accused. There was
demand of bribe by accused No.1. Accused No.2 was present at the police
station. Accused No.1 demanded bribe and instructed complainant to hand
over the money to accused No.2. The amount was accepted without any
protest which shows that he was acting in connivance with accused No.1.
Thus, aided and abetted accused No.1 in committing crime. Prosecution has
succeeded in establishing the demand and acceptance of bribe.
9. Learned Advocates for accused No.1 have relied upon the following
decisions.
(i) P.A. Mohandas Vs. State of Kerala1
(ii) State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram
Karri2
10. PW-1 Roksana Banu (complainant) in her deposition has stated that,
she was residing along with her mother-in-law and brother-in-law Mohd.
Nabi Qureshi. She did not know person by name Munna and Firoz Khan.
1 (2003) 9 SCC 504
2 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 555 (S.C.)
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
Accused No.1 was posted at Vashi Railway Police Station. He visited the
house of complainant on 7th February 2001 alongwith other persons at
06:00 pm. He enquired about Mohd. Nabi Qureshi. Mohd. Nabi Qureshi
was sleeping in the house. Accused No.1 took Nabi with him to police
station. The complainant was directed by accused No.1 to contact him on
the next date at 11:00 am. On 8th February 2001, she contacted accused
No.1 at Vashi Railway Police Station. Accused No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.1
lakh and threatened that, if the amount is not given, Nabi Qureshi would be
implicated in robbery case. The complainant expressed her inability to pay
the amount and informed accused No.1 that, she would make arrangement
of Rs.25,000/- on 10th February 2001. She left police chowki. On 10 th
February 2001, she visited ACB, Worli and contacted officer Mausamkar.
Complaint was recorded. She was carrying cash of Rs.25,000/-.
Arrangement was made for conducting raid. At about 08:00 p.m. to 09:00
p.m., she went to Vashi by police vehicle and reached near Vashi Railway
Police Station. At about 10:00 p,m., she got down from the vehicle and
alone went to police station. Accused No.1 was present at police chowki. He
inquired with her if she had brought money. She replied in affirmative. The
accused No.1 demanded the amount. She paid the bribe money to accused
No.1. He accepted it. In the ACB office, she was instructed by officer
Mausamkar to drop her money purse on the floor after making payment by
way of signal. Accordingly, she came out of police chowki and dropped her
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
money purse on the floor. Police rushed to the chowki. ACB Officer took
away accused No.1. Nothing took place in the police chowki. She returned
home.
11. From the evidence of PW-1 it can be seen that according to her
accused No.1 demanded bribe amount on 8th February 2001. She lodged the
complaint to ACB on 10th February 2001. Raid was arranged on 10 th
February 2001. She went to Vashi Railway Police Station with police on
10th February 2001 and reached there at about 10:00 pm. She alone went
to police chowki and met accused. The accused demanded money. She
handed over the money. On giving signal, raiding party came to the spot
and apprehended accused. She does not refer to presence of any other
person along with her at the time of demand and acceptance of money by
accused. She does not refer to presence of accused No.2. The amount was
handed over to accused No.1. Presence of panch witnesses is not
mentioned. The version of this witness run counter to evidence all the other
witnesses.
12. Parallel investigation was conducted in Crime No.7 of 2001 wherein
allegedly the complaint was lodged by one Firoz Khan alleging that accused
No.1 herein had demanded the bribe of Rs.25,000/- from him for releasing
Munna. Evidence of Munna in the parallel case referred to the fact that he
was taken into custody by accused No.1 and brought to the house of Mohd.
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
Nabi Qureshi. The prosecution case in crime No.7 of 2001 which was
subject matter of Special Case No. 34 of 2002 is that raids were effected on
the same date. The complainant in that case was also present at the police
station simultaneously demand was made by accused. Amount was handed
over to accused No.2 on the instructions of accused No.1. All these facts
disclosed in Special Case No. 34 of 2002 are completely absent in the
evidence of PW-1. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has accepted
the version of PW-1 as deposed before the court although it was contrary to
the evidence of other witnesses.
13. PW-2 Sunanda Muluk acted as panch witness. According to her, she
was instructed to act as panch witness. She visited the office of ACB. She
met Police Inspector Mausamkar. She was introduced to Ruksana Banu.
She was complainant. Ruksana Banu produced amount of Rs. 25,000/-.
Instructions were given by Police Inspector to raiding party. She was
instructed to accompany complainant to Vashi Railway Police Station and
watch transaction. She has referred to presence of Vaishali, who was
instructed to act of panch and accompany another complainant Mr. Firoz
Khan, who was also present at the office of ACB. She further stated that,
Ruksana Banu had brought veils. PW-2 and Vaishali (panch witness in C.R.
No. 7 of 2001) were directed to wear the veils. The complainant was
directed to pay the amount on demand by accused. The complainant was
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
directed to give signal on making payment by dropping her money purse on
the ground by her left hand. The complainant Firoz Khan was also
instructed to move his left hand on his hair, on coming out of the police
station as signal of payment of bribe money. All of them went to Vashi
Railway Police Chowki. There were three to four persons in the cabin of
accused No.1. They were Mr.Jagdhane and Mr.Bangare. They entered in the
cabin of accused No.1. The accused No.1 inquired with Roksana Banu if she
had brought money. He directed her to make payment of amount to
accused No.2 by pointing finger towards him. Accused No.2 counted
currency notes. Accused No.1 directed accused No.2 to keep the amount
with him. The complainant Firoz Khan also handed over the money. After
demand, Rs.5,000/- was accepted by Mr. Bangare. Raiding party barged
into the chowki. Accused were apprehended.
14. The evidence of this witness is contrary to what is deposed by PW-1.
The complainant (PW-1) has not referred to presence of PW-2 at Police
chowki at the time of demand or acceptance of amount. According to PW-2,
the bribe amount was handed over to accused No.2 whereas PW-1 has
deposed that, the amount was handed over to accused No.1.
15. In the cross-examination PW-2 has stated that, she was not
introduced to any police constable by referring to their buckle numbers. She
was shown pre-trap panchnama Exh.24 and post trap panchnama Exh.22.
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
The buckle numbers of constables mentioned in it are written by Officer Mr.
Mousamkar. Her signature was not obtained below the three signatures.
She has nothing to show that, three signatures appearing on the last page of
the post trap panchnama were obtained in her presence. There is no
mention of PW-2, PW-1 and Vaishali Malshekhar wearing veil in the
panchnama. In the pre-trap panchnama Exh.24 and her statement recorded
by police she stated that, when the demonstration was given, she was
introduced to Firoz Khan as a complainant in another case against accused
by ACB Officer Mr.More. However, this fact is not mentioned in the
panchnama and in her statement. She had also stated in pre-trap
panchnama and in her statement that, Firoz Khan produced Rs.5,000/- and
he was instructed to give signal by moving his left hand on his hair on
coming out of the police station. However, this fact is not reflected in her
statement. In the post trap panchnama, it is not stated that PW-2 and PW-1
entered into the cabin of accused after PW-1 obtained his permission to
come inside but the said fact is not mentioned in it.
16. PW-3 Mohd. Nabi Ahmad Nabi Qureshi had deposed in his deposition
that, he knows Munna Dilawar Khan. On 7 th February 2001, he came at his
house. At about 06:30 p.m., four police persons in civil dress came to his
house along with Munna Dilawar Khan. Police persons came from Vashi
Railway Police Station. They were enquiring with him about robbery
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
committed on 1st February 2001 at Vashi Railway Police Station. In the
same night at about 03:00 to 04:00 a.m., they were released from Vashi
Railway Police Station. A.C.B., Mumbai Crime Unit recorded his statement
on 16th February 2001. He was arrested on 30th March 2002 in C.R. No. 07
of 2001 of Vashi Railway Police Station under Section 379 of I.P.C. and
released on bail on 12th April 2002. This is the same crime in which he was
arrested after one year. Charge-sheet is filed against him and the same is
pending. Before 7th February 2001, he was not knowing accused No.2. He
had not gone to Vashil Railway Police Station after 7th February 2001.
17. From the factual aspects of the version of this witness it is apparent
that he was knowing Munna Dilawar Khan. He was arrested in C.R. No. 7
of 2001 registered with Vashi Railway Police Station. Munna Khan and PW-
3 were suspected to be involved in the same case. It is relevant to note that,
the alleged bribe was demanded during the same period. Complaints were
made by complainant in each case during the same period. Raid was
arranged on the same day. Accused in both complaints were apprehended
while accepting the bribe on the same day. This co-incident does not
appear to be natural and speak volumes of doubt. It is also relevant to note
that, the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 reveal that PW-3 was taken to Vashi
Railway Police Station alongwith Nabi Mohd. Qureshi, on 7 th February 2001
at 06:30 p.m., and in the same night about 03:00 to 04:00 a.m., they were
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
released from Vashi Railway Police Station. This belies the prosecution case
that the suspects were detained at the police station for long time and
accused No.1 demanded money to release them.
18. The accused are charged for committing offence under Sections 7, 12,
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no
charge under Section 343 of I.P.C. in this case. It is relevant to note that,
the prosecution case in Special Case No.34 of 2002 is that Munna Khan and
Mohd. Nabi Qureshi were both detained at Police Chowki. However, PW-3
in this case has stated that, they were released in the same night.
19. PW-4 Mr. Subhashchandra Malhotra was serving as Director General
Of Police, Maharashtra State. Letter dated 4th September 2001 was
submitted by ACB to him. He received case papers. He found that there
was prima facie case against the accused to grant sanction. He accorded
sanction. Office of Director General of Police sent sanction order to the
office of ACB with covering letter. He received papers of investigation and
draft sanction order. He produced diary Nos. 21 and 26. Except few
changes in the draft sanction order, he approved draft sanction order. In
the sanction order and draft sanction order place and timing 06:30 pm is
not mentioned. Police Inspector of A Class and B Class are gazetted officers.
Maharashtra State Government has issued G.R. dated 3rd April 2000. It was
marked as Exh.34. From the evidence of this witness it is apparent that he
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
has mechanically granted sanction. He has no satisfied how he is competent
to accord sanction.
20. PW-5 Mr.Govindsingh Jagdishsingh Pardeshi was serving as P.S.I. at
Vashi Railway Police Station since May 2000. On 10 th February 2001, he
was on duty at Vashi Railway Police Station. According to him, two to three
days prior to 10th February 2001 P.I. Jadhav and Police staff brought Nabi
Mohd. and Munna for investigation. There was no entry made in the
station diary about bringing the said persons. In the cross examination, he
stated that, the incident which had occurred are noted in the station diary.
The incidents which are not occurred are not noted in station diary. The
attention of the witness was drawn to station diary entry Nos. 17, 18 and
19 dated 6th February 2001. As per the station diary entry Nos. 17, 18 and
19 dated 6th February 2001 the accused No.1 was present in Vashi Railway
Police Station from 10:15 am to 12:20 noon. The attention of the witness
was drawn to station diary entry No.21 dated 7 th February 2001. As per the
said entry at 01:45 p.m. accused No.1 and others including the witness had
gone to search the pages of Guru Granthsahib as mentioned in the entry
serial No. 21. In the entry No. 26 dated 7 th February 2001, there is
reference of entry No.21. They all returned on the same day at 08:00 pm.
On 8th February 2001 at 11:30 a.m., accused No.1 and others went to
search aforesaid papers in three groups at Vashi to Vashi Creek. Accordingly,
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
the entry was made at Sr. No. 17 in the station diary dated 8 th February
2001. All of them returned at 07:45 p.m. and accordingly entry was made
at Sr. No. 26.
21. PW-6 Mr. Suresh Balkrishna Mosamkar is the Investigating Officer.
He has provided details about investigation. He stated that he has not
introduced to police constable by his name and buckle number to informant
and pachas, who applied the anthracene powder to the currency notes. He
has not noted in the pre-trap panchnama that the clothes and hands of
panchas, informant and police party were observed under the UV rays. He
has not mentioned in pre-trap panchnama Exh.24 that it was read over and
explained to the panchas. He has not mentioned in detail in pre-trap
panchnama Exh. 24 as to how demonstration of anthracene powder was
shown to the panchas. Pre-trap panchnama used to be drawn after FIR.
When he went inside the chamber, he saw that hands of accused Jadhav
were held. He also saw that hands of accused No.2 Jagdhane were also
held. He does not remember whether the hands of panchas were examined
under UV rays. On perusal of panchnama, he say that the hands of oth the
panchas were not examined under UV rays. Initially bribe money was seen
in the hands of accused No.2. Thereafter, hands of accused No.2 were
examined under the rays of UV lamp after removal of bribe money from his
hand.
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
22. 18. The defence of the accused No.1 reflected in explanation under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
"Q.104 :- Do you want to say anything else?
Ans.:- whatever stated by the complainant about demand and
acceptance of money from time to time is false. It is false that, I
brought complainant's brother-in-law in Vashi Rly. P.S. From the
entries made in station diary Vashi Rly. P.S. it will disclose that
evidence of complainant is false. Neither I called nor brought
informant's brother-in-law at Vashi Rly. P.S. This will be cleared
from entries made in station diary. Parallel investigation of C.R.
No.7/2001 of Vashi Rly. P.S. u/sec.379, 34 of I.P.C. was given on
through P.I. Avhad and his staff under the supervision of ACP Shri
Nagdavade. There was direct control of CP on said Unit. I was
also making investigation of said crime. There were two names of
accused in the said crime. Mr. Khambal was arrested on the spot of
incident at the platform of Govandi Rly. Station, other accused
Waghmare was absconding with the bag of Rs.One Lac. Waghmare
was brought by Police Staff Vashi Rly. Station for investigation. In
the said investigation Munna and Nabi were disclosed as offenders
in the said crime. When Munna and Nabi realized that, they
would be arrested by me then they lodged false complaint against
me at ACB Office. Thus, I am falsely involved in the crime with the
help of ACB Police. ACB Police, Panch and complainant made
collusion in this case. D.G.P. Malhotra Saheb is not Competent
Authority to remove me from the service. Government of
Maharashtra is Competent Authority to remove me from service.
Sanction given by him is without perusal of papers. C.R. No.4/01
of Vashi Rly. Station u/sec.295-A, 427 I.P.C. was investigated by
A.C.P. Shri Anup Salunkhe as per the order of C.P., A.C.P. was doing
investigation through me. Thus, I investigate on 5 th and 8th
February, under his supervision. Daljit Sing and others 15 were
social workers.
23. The defence of the accused is of denial. The Station diary entry
(Exh.29/2) mentioned that on 7 th February 2001 at 13:30 hours in the
afternoon, the accused upon information left Vashi Railway Police Station
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
along with PSI Shri. Pardesh (PW-5) and his staff to search some lost pages
of the 'Holy Guru Granth Sahib' near Vashi Creek where some Sikh
followers had gathered and returned in the evening at 20:00 hours vide
entry No. 26. The accused thereby denies that he had visited the house of
complainant at 06:00 p.m. on 7 th February 2001. It is also case of the
accused that in the absence of any such prior demand and appointment, the
question of calling the complainant at Vashi Railway Police Station on 10 th
February 2001 at 19:50 hours does not arise.
24. The station diary entries referred to hereinabove creates doubt about
the prosecution case spelt out the evidence from complainant that the
appellant had visited his house on 7th February 2001 for making inquiry
about Munna and there was demand of bribe amount.
25. PW-5 Mr. Pardeshi has stated that the incidents which are occurred
are noted in the station diary. The incidents which are not occurred are not
noted in the station diary. His attention was drawn to station diary entry
Nos. 17, 18 and 19 dated 6 th February 2001. As per the station diary entry
Nos. 17, 18 and 19 dated 6 th February 2001 the accused No.1 was present
in Vashi Railway Police Station during the period of 10:15 am to 12:20
noon. The attention of witness is drawn to station diary entry No.21 dated
7th February 2001. He admitted that as per the said entry at about 01:45
pm the witness, accused No.1 and five constables were gone to search the
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
pages of Guru Granth Sahib as mentioned in the entry No.26 dated 7 th
February 2001 and there is a reference of entry No.21. The witness also
admitted that they all returned on the same day at 08:00 p.m.. On 8 th
February 2001, the witness, accused No.1 and other staff had gone to
search the aforesaid papers in three groups to the area in between Vashi to
Vashi Creek and entry in that regard is taken at serial No. 17 in station diary
dated 8th February 2001. This admission and documentary evidence speaks
volumes of doubt about the version of complainant.
26. Sanction accorded by PW-4 Mr.Subhashchandra Malhotra was
challenged by defence on the ground that it was granted mechanically
without perusing the papers of investigation and application of mind. PW-4
has stated that he received papers of investigation and draft sanction order
alongwith letter Exh.32, diary No.21, diary No.26 were filed. PW-4
admitted that except few changes in the draft sanction order, he approved
draft sanction order. Apparently, the sanctioning authority has not
considered the station diary entry No.21 (Exh.29/2) and station diary entry
No.26 (Exh.29/3) of Vashi Railway Police Station. The said entry shows
that on 7th February 2001 at about 13:30 hours the accused had upon
information, left the Vashi Railway Police Station along with staff to search
of lost pages of the Holy Guru Granth Sahib. They returned in the evening
at 20:00 hours vide entry No.26. PW-4 has admitted that in the sanction
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
order and draft sanction order, the place and timing 06:00 pm in respect of
allegations are not mentioned though it is mentioned in the FIR. PW-4 has
deposed that along with letter Exh.32 he received complaint, panchnama,
statement of accused, supplementary statement of informant, statement of
PW-5 and statement of panch witness. Apparently, PW-4 has not perused
the FIR otherwise he would have mentioned in the sanction order (Exh.34)
that 'for releasing him' and may not have mentioned in the sanction order
in the matter of releasing him. Except for a few changes PW-4 has
approved draft sanction order and accorded sanction. Both the documents
are identical. Apparently, the sanctioning authority had adopted the draft
sanction order.
27. Case of the prosecution suffers from serious doubt. The version of
panch witness indicate that, the money was handed over to accused No.2
and the demand was made by accused No.1 whereas according to
complainant, the amount was demanded and accepted by accused No.1.
The version of complainant is absolutely contradictory to prosecution case.
The accused No.2 is not involved in demand. He had alleged accepted
money. Surprisingly in both cases, the amount was allegedly accepted by
accused No.2. The case is apparently concocted. Sanction order reflects
non application of mind. Complainant has given completely different
dimension to the case.
DAE Apeal-460-2007.doc
28. The prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable
doubt. Considering the nature of infirmity in the evidence, the accused are
entitled for benefit of doubt and hence, conviction is required to be set
aside.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal Nos. 472 of 2007 and 460 of 2007 are allowed.
(ii) The impugned Judgment and order dated 17 th April 2007 passed by
Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act) and Additional
Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 42 of 2002 is set
aside and appellants are acquitted of all the charges.
(iii) Bail bond stands cancelled.
(iv) Criminal Appeals stand disposed off.
(v) Interim Application stands disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
