Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Pramod Namdeo Mahajan on 1 July, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:12446
-1- ALS-223-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.223 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Through Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Applicant
Versus
Pramod Namdeo Mahajan,
Age : 52 years,
R/o. Narayan Nagar, Lalbagh,
Burhanpur (M.P.) ... Respondent
(Orig. Accused)
...
Mr. N. D. Batule, APP for Applicant - State.
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 20th JUNE, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 01st JULY, 2024
ORDER :
1. State is intending to question the judgment and order
of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge and Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon, dated 27.06.2018 in
Special (ACB) Case No.5 of 2014, thereby acquitting present
respondent from offense punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
-2- ALS-223-2018
2. In support of leave to file appeal, learned APP pointed
out that, complaint was received from PW1 Atul against present
respondent, a Junior Engineer working in MSEB for demanding
Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for shifting electrical pole, which
was obstructing public way. That, complaint was lodged with ACB
authorities, Dhule. Panchas were called. That, trap was planned
and it was successful. Amount was demanded and accepted and
immediately respondent was apprehended. That, there is cogent
and reliable evidence of complainant and pancha. That, sanctioning
authority had after due application of mind, accorded sanction.
That, offence was clearly and cogently brought home, but learned
trial court acquitted the accused. That, There is improper
appreciation of evidence as well as law and so according to learned
APP, State is keen in filing appeal and they have every hope of
success and hence he seeks leave.
3. Above application is opposed by learned advocate for
respondent pointing out that, prosecution failed to establish the
charges. That, evidence of complainant and pancha witness is not
inspiring confidence. That, demand and acceptance is not proved.
Prosecution witnesses are at variance. That, said sanctioning
authority, at the outset, had no powers to grant sanction.
Therefore, essentials for attracting the charges were missing and
-3- ALS-223-2018
on complete and meticulous appreciation of evidence, learned trial
court has acquitted the accused. It is pointed out that, accused had
adduced evidence of defence witness. That, there was deliberate
implication out of political affiliations and complaint is motivated
one. Hence, according to him, there is no need to disturb the
findings, and moreover, according to him, no good ground is made
out to grant leave.
4. After considering the respective submissions and on
going through the record, it seems that, present respondent was
charge-sheeted for offense under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988. In all five witnesses were
examined by prosecution i.e. PW1 Atul - complainant; PW2
Jitendrakumar - pancha witness; PW3 Pradeep Mate - Sanctioning
Authority; PW4 Somnath Tambe, Dy.S.P.; PW5 Shivaji Deshmukh,
Investigating Officer.
Defence has also adduced evidence of DW1 Devidas, an
Assistant Lineman.
5. Substance of the complaint is that, complainant had
approached respondent with a request to shift electric pole, which
was on a public way. According to complainant, accused informed
-4- ALS-223-2018
him that amount of Rs.60,000/- would be required to be expended
for shifting and also gave quotation. But, asked accused to bring
Rs.10,000/- and as complainant was not willing to pay
gratification, he lodged complaint. ACB authorities planned and
laid trap. Both of them were instructed to visit the office and on
demand, to pay the bribe amount. He and pancha approached
accused as per the plan. Accused asked him, whether he brought
the quotation amount of Rs.10,000/-. They went towards Dipraj
General Stores, bribe amount was offered and it was accepted by
complainant and then necessary signal was relayed and raiding
party apprehended the accused.
6. Perused the impugned judgment under challenge. It
appears from paragraph no.24 onwards, learned trial Judge
analyzed and appreciated the available evidence. It is observed
that, prosecution could not prove actual demand of bribe and its
payment. It is further observed that, there are several material
contradictions in cross examinations of all material witnesses.
However, prima facie, it appears from the judgment that, there is
no supportive analysis and reason as to why actual demand and
acceptance is not proved by prosecution. What are material
contradictions, are also not reflected in the said paragraph of the
judgment. Aspects like failure to prepare demand verification
-5- ALS-223-2018
panchanama, filing complaint at Dhule in spite of office available at
Jalgaon are taken into consideration. In view of residence of panch
(PW2), his testimony is doubted. Non availability of signature of
other persons of the locality on the application for removal of pole
and application made on letterhead on BJP party also seems to
have prevailed over the opinion of learned trial court.
7. Consequently, taking the same into consideration and
also taking into consideration that complainant, panch witness are
examined at length and acceptance of amount is brought on record,
the above opinion reached by trial court, prima facie, does not
tallying with the evidence. Moreover, evidence of sanctioning
authority also shows that there is studied approach before
according sanction and considering the designation of sanctioning
authority, who very categorically deposed that he is appointing as
well as removing authority, such testimony ought not to have been
discarded on the ground of want of powers.
Hence, there is a good case and grounds exists to be
dealt in appeal. Hence, leave as prayed deserves to be granted.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) Application stands allowed.
-6- ALS-223-2018
(ii) Leave is granted to the prosecution to file Appeal.
(iii) Registry to register the Appeal.
(iv) Appeal stands admitted.
(v) Call record and proceedings.
(vi) Action under section 390 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure be taken against the respondent to
the satisfaction of the trial court.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
