Bombay High Court
Lalasaheb Pandurang Dongre vs Sampat Shrirang Gaikwad And Anr on 9 January, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
2024:BHC-AS:1063
25-APEAL-1068-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1068 OF 2022
Lalasaheb Pandurang Dongre ...Appellant
Versus
Sampat Shrirang Gaikwad And Anr. ...Respondents
Ms. Siddhi Patil i/by Mr. Prashant Hagare Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 9th JANUARY, 2024
P.C.:-
1. Appeal is preferred under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 29 th April 2022 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Baramati, District Pune in Special A.C.B. Case No. 24 of
2015 whereby the Respondent No.1 was acquitted.
2. The case of prosecution is that, the complaint was filed by appellant
with ACB, Pune and contended that he is agriculturist and owned the land
at village. He applied for conversion of the land for non-agricultural use.
Order dated 23rd April 2013 was passed by Sub-Divisional Officer allowing
conversion. He submitted order to the Talathi to take necessary note in
village form No.2. The Talathi (accused) did not make necessary
endorsement on 7/12 extract. He demanded Rs.15,000/- with
complainant/appellant. Complaint was made to ACB. It was decided to
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 1
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 22:29:34 :::
25-APEAL-1068-2022.doc
verify the demand. Voice recorder was installed. Conversation between
complainant and accused was recorded. Accused demanded the amount.
Thereafter, raid was arranged. The complainant and the panch witnesses
visited the office of the accused. Bribe amount kept on the table. The panch
witness No.2 took out the bribe amount below the register kept on the
table. The accused was apprehended. Charge-sheet was filed.
3. The prosecution examined three witnesses i.e. PW-1 is the
complainant, PW-2 is panch witness and PW-3 is the Investigating Officer.
After analyzing the evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the judgment of
trial Court is contrary to law. The prosecution has proved its case. There
was sufficient evidence to convict the respondent. The demand was
verified. Conversation between accused and the complainant was recorded.
Recorded conversation indicated that there was demand of Rs. 13,000/- by
the accused. The accused instructed the complainant to keep the amount on
the table. Amount was kept on the table. Thus, demand and acceptance
was proved. It was an error to acquit the accused. Order of acquittal is
required to be set aside.
5. Learned APP on instructions submitted that the State did not file
Appeal.
6. I have perused the evidence recorded by trial Court and the judgment
of acquittal. The trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while acquitting
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 2
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 22:29:34 :::
25-APEAL-1068-2022.doc
the accused. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has failed to
establish the demand and acceptance of the amount. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the accused has accepted the amount in his hand. The
amount was purportedly kept on the table. The case of the prosecution is
that PW-1 and PW-2 had been to the office of Talathi. PW-1 took the bribe
amount and kept it on the table on instructions of the accused. One register
was kept on the bribe amount. PW-1 told the ACB Officials that the amount
was below the register. The ACB officials asked the accused to take out the
amount. The accused took out the amount and gave it to ACB officials. PW-
2 has deposed that the complainant kept the bribe amount below the
register on the table of the accused. Police Constable caught the hand of the
accused when the raid was effected. Panch witness lifted register and found
the bribe amount. PW-3 has deposed that hands of the accused were held
by two persons. The panch witness took out bribe amount which was kept
below the register. There are contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 and
PW-2. PW-1 has deposed that he took the bribe amount and the Accused
kept it on the register. PW-2 deposed that PW-1 has kept bribe amount
below the register. None of the witnesses have deposed that accused
received the bribe amount from the complainant. According to PW-1, he
touched the bribe amount only when he was asked by ACB Officials to take
out the bribe amount. Prosecution could not give any explaination as to
why the anthracene powder was found on the hands of the accused.
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 3
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 22:29:34 :::
25-APEAL-1068-2022.doc
Finding of anthracene powder on the hands of the accused proves that the
amount of bribe is passed from the complainant to the accused. However,
the prosecution case is that the bribe amount was kept by the accused on
the table and it was not handed over to the accused. The prosecution has
not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Presumption under section 20
of the Prevention of Corruption Act is rebutted. The trial Court has rightly
acquitted the accused. No case is made out to interfere the impugned order
of acquittal. Appeal is devoid of merits.
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No. 1068 of 2022 is dismissed and disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
