Bombay High Court
Vinayak Sakharam Thavil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 16 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:4276-DB
(1)
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2288 OF 2022
Vinayak S/o Sakharam Thavil,
Age : 41 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Anikesh Plaza, Behind Sona Gas Agency,
Pimpalner, Tq. Sakhri, Dist. Dhule ... Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through In-charge Police Inspector,
Pimpalner Police Station,
Tq. Sakhri, Dist. Dhule
2. Komal Ishwarlal Devare,
Age : 34 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Mali Glli, Pimpalner,
Tq. Sakhri, Dist. Dhule
....
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/n Adv. Sandip R.
Sapkal, Advocate for the applicant.
Adv. R. P. Gour, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 State.
....
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ
DATED : JANUARY 16, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J):
-
1. The applicant in the present matter was working on the
post of Additional Tahsildar Pimpalner Taluka Sakri, District
Dhule in the year 2022. One Madhukar Yashwant More had
filed an application before him for conversion of land bearing
Gut No. 176/4 admeasuring 3 H 78 R from class II to class I.
The applicant claims that he had issued a communication
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
dated 04.05.2022 directing Shri. More to complete some
formalities for processing the application and since the
compliances were not made, the said application came to be
rejected on 14.06.2022.
2. Respondent No.2 in the present matter claims that she
had entered into an agreement with said Mr. More in order to
purchase the said land bearing Gut No. 176/4. She states that
the application for conversion of status of land from class II to
class I was made by the land owner Shri. More in order to
complete the proposed sale transaction. Respondent No.2
claims that she had arranged all the relevant papers as
required by the applicant vide communication dated
04.05.2022 and had personally met the applicant in relation to
the proposal for conversion of status of land from class II to
class I. She claims that the applicant had demanded bribe of
Rs. 25,000/- for the purpose of forwarding report to the office
of Collector Dhule for taking appropriate decision on the
proposal for conversion of land.
3. In this backdrop, Respondent No.2 claims that she did
not desire to pay bribe to the applicant and, therefore, made a
complaint against the applicant to the Deputy Superintendent
of Police (hereinafter referred to as 'Dy.S.P.') on 08.06.2022.
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
She states that the Dy.S.P. had arranged for two government
servants to act as panchas who were introduced to her and
she was directed with proper instructions to meet the
applicant for the purpose of verification of demand. She states
that a digital voice recorder was provided to her for recording
the conversation regarding alleged demand. Respondent No. 2
and one panch reached the Tahsil office and went to the
chamber of the applicant where the applicant and one
Sandeep Musale were already sitting. According to her, the
applicant pointed out short-comings and deficiencies in the
proposal to her and other person present in the Chamber viz
Sandeep Musale also expressed his agreement with the views
of the applicant. During the course of conversation, Sandeep
Musale signalled respondent No.2 to meet him outside the
cabin of the applicant and there he informed her that the
applicant had demanded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to do needful
in the matter. She claims that she bargained with said Musale
and accordingly arrived at figure of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to
the applicant as bribe for the work of forwarding report to the
office of Collector, Dhule. According to her, the voice recording
between the applicant, Sandeep Musale and herself was then
verified by the Dy.S.P. and both panchas and accordingly a
trap was planned to be conducted on the following day i.e. on
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
09.06.2022. She has stated that after making all the
arrangements she tried to contact the private person, Sandeep
Musale in order to give the amount to him as was decided and
planned. She states that Sandeep Musale avoided to met her
on that day and expressed that probably he had a doubt about
the intention of respondent No.2 and, therefore, deliberately
did not meet her in order to accept the amount. On the basis
of these allegations, she has lodged F.I.R with police station,
Pimpalner, District Dhule on 24.06.2022 vide F.I.R No. 155 of
2022 for offences punishable under Section 7(a) and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Pursuant to the F.I.R respondent No.1 conducted
investigation and has filed a charge sheet in the matter. The
present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in order to challenge the said F.I.R.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Sapkal appearing on
behalf of the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R lodged by
respondent No.2 is with an ulterior motive. He states that
prior to this, respondent No.2 had tried to implicate the
applicant in an offence under Section 354-A of the IPC,
however, in the said matter the prosecution has given a clean
cheat to the applicant by issuing 'B' summary recording that
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
the complaint was 'false'. Copy of the said 'B' summary dated
31.12.2021 is filed with the petition as annexture 'A'. As
regards the merits of the present matter, he submits that, the
script of alleged demand does not demonstrate that the
applicant had demanded or even that the the private
individual Sandeep Musale, who is arrayed as accused No.2
had demanded any amount from respondent No.2. He further
states that the C.C.T.V. footage recovered from the spot does
not support the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 in the
F.I.R. He then referred to a communication dated 30.06.2023,
issued by Superintendent of Police A.C.B., Nashik Region,
Nashik to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau
Maharashtra State Mumbai issued in relation to complaint
against the Dy. S. P. who had dealt with the matter. He draws
our attention to the said communication to point out that with
respect to the demand panchnama dated 8.06.2022 it was
found that panch No.2 Avinash Patil had not gone to the spot
i.e. Tahsil office along with respondent No.2. The
communication states that presence of panch No.1 is falsified
by the CCTV footage which does not show his presence at the
spot. According to the report, both the panchas had stayed at
Government Rest House, Dhule on 08.06.2022. The report
also refers to the visitor register in which entry of panch
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
Avinash Patil is not found. The report by Superintendent of
Police states that in the verification panchnama dated
08.06.2022, the inquiry officer had taken signatures of both
panchas on 13.06.2022 although they were not present. The
learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submits that the demand
panchnma is of no use to the prosecution and unless there is
some material to support the allegations regarding demand,
the prosecution cannot be allowed to be proceeded further. He
also drew our attention to the report, wherein by making
reference to CCTV footage it is stated that there is nothing to
indicate that applicant No.1 had made any signal with his
hands to the other accused thereby indicating him to talk to
respondent No.2 about to ask him to demand bribe. Likewise,
it is further stated that the script of panchnma also does not
indicate that there was any conversation between the applicant
and respondent No.2 complainant regarding demand of money.
The report also reveals that the applicant had already
completed formalities with respect to the file with respect to
which allegation is levelled. In view of the aforesaid, the
learned Senior Advocate submits that the prosecution case
cannot stand scrutiny even if the entire material is accepted to
be true and correct and as such the F.I.R against the applicant
should be quashed.
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
6. Per contra, Mrs. R. P. Gour learned A.P.P. also refers to
the report to point out that a discrete inquiry has revealed that
the applicant used to accept illegal gratification and bribe
regularly through accused No.2 Sandeep Musale. She then
states that the report further suggests the involvement of the
applicant from the circumstances at the relevant time i.e. the
file of respondent No.2 was lying on the table of the applicant
when she had gone to meet her, discussion between the
applicant and respondent No.2 during the course of which
accused No.2 was intervening regularly and accused No.2
calling respondent No.2 to meet her outside the chamber
which was not objected to by the applicant. These
circumstances according to the learned A.P.P. gives clear
indication of demand by the applicant. She points out the
report on which the learned Senior Advocate has relied which
also indicates that there were reasons to suspect that accused
No.2 was demanding money on behalf of the applicant. As
regards the contention of the learned Senior Advocate that the
script of demand does not indicate that the applicant had
demanded amount from respondent No.2 she retorts that it is
not even the case of prosecution that the amount was directly
demanded by the applicant. She points out that the demand
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
was made by accused No.2 on behalf of the applicant.
7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and
also perused the record of the case with assistance of the both
the learned Advocates. It is now very well settled that in cases
with respect to demand of illegal gratification, the demand has
to be proved by the prosecution. Even if the money is actually
given and accepted, public servant cannot be convicted for
accepting illegal gratification unless the demand for the same
is proved. At this stage, the prosecution must be armed with
sufficient material which can take the shape of legally
admissible evidence during the course of trial. At the present
stage the test will be as to whether the material on record if
unchallenged, will be enough to drive home the allegations.
With these considerations we proceed to deal with the
material on record.
8. The material on record indicates that respondent No.2
had visited the chamber of the applicant on 08.06.2022 in
relation to work of conversion of land. The allegation is that
accused No.2 had asked respondent No.2 to meet her outside
the chamber of the applicant where he raised a demand of Rs.
35,000/- on behalf of the applicant and ultimately settled at
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
Rs. 25,000/-. The prosecution case is that respondent No.2
had accompanied by panch witness Shri. Avinash Patil.
However, the communication by Superintendent of Police Anti
Corruption Bureau to Director General of Police (A.C.B.) clearly
records that the said panch witness had never accompanied
the respondent No.2 at the time of demand. The report clearly
states that although both the panch witnesses were not
present at the time of alleged demand, the Investigating Officer
had obtained their signatures subsequently. The report
indicates that the Investigating Officer has prepared a false
panchnama. The panchnama with respect to demand has
thus lost all credibility. Since the material on the basis of
which the demand is to be proved i.e. the panchnama, stands
completely dislodged, it is obvious that there is no material to
establish that demand was made by the applicants. In the
absence of material to indicate the demand, prosecution
against the applicants cannot be sustained. Proceeding with
the matter against the applicant in the backdrop of undisputed
facts emerging from the record would be an exercise in futility.
No fruitful purpose will be served by making the applicants
to face the criminal prosecution when the panchnama
regarding demand has lost credibility in its entirety. It is
apparent from the document of respondent No.1 itself that
Cri. Appln. No. 2288-2022.odt
false panchnama was prepared with respect to the demand. In
view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the
F.I.R. needs to be quashed against the applicant. Hence, the
following order :-
ORDER
(I) The application is allowed.
(II) The First Information Report vide Crime No. 0155 of 2022,
registered with Pimpalner Police Station, Taluka Sakhri,
District Dhule dated 24.06.2022 for the offences punishable
under Sections 7(a) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
is hereby quashed and set aside against applicant Vinayak S/o
Sakharam Thavil.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
JUDGE JUDGE
Y.S. Kulkarni
