Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Prakash Ganpatrao Hatkar on 2 May, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:12414
1 APEAL278.2005.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. ...Appellant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
Shri. Prakash Ganpatrao Hatkar,
Age : 36 years, Occu. Service as Talathi,
R/o. Kallam, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. ...Respondent
(Orig. Accused)
..........
Mr. D. J. Patil - Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Appellant/State
Mr. M. S. Patil - Advocate for sole Respondent
............
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 16TH APRIL 2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 02ND MAY 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. This is an Appeal under Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure [hereinaftere referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'] against the
Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (A.C.) No. 17 of 2001, acquitting the
Respondent of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short
"P.C. Act"].
SG Punde
2 APEAL278.2005.odt
2. The Prosecution's case as revealed from the Police Report is
as under : -
2.1. Bharat Janardhan Bawale [hereinafter referred to as 'the
Complainant'], resident of Itkur, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad, was an
agriculturist. For the purposes of Crop Insurance Scheme launched by
the Central Government, the Complainant was in need of documents
relating to agricultural field, i.e. 7/12 extract and 8A. The Respondent
was working as the Talathi of the said area. To get the said documents,
the Complainant went to the office of Respondent on 26.07.2001
requesting for the said documents. As the Respondent was busy, the
Complainant again went to meet him on 30.07.2001. The Respondent
asked the Complainant that, if he pays Rs.300/-, his work would be done.
On the request made by the Complainant, the Respondent asked him to
pay Rs.200/- for now and the Complainant paid Rs.100/- and told him
that he will pay the remaining Rs.100/- on 31.07.2001. The Complainant
approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged the
Complaint / Report.
2.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [for short 'Dy.S.P.'],
Anti Corruption Bureau, Osmanabad, prepared the pre-trap panchanama
and a trap was laid. The Complainant, officials of the Anti Corruption
Bureau and the Panchas reached the office of the Respondent on
SG Punde
3 APEAL278.2005.odt
31.07.2001. The Respondent gave the documents to the Complainant and
the Complainant kept a note of Rs.100/- on the table of the Respondent.
The Complainant gave the signal and the officials of the Anti Corruption
Bureau apprehended the Respondent. The necessary formalities of arrest
were carried out. The Crime was registered against the Respondent and
on completion of investigation, the Resondent came to be
Charge-Sheeted.
2.3. The learned Trial Court framed the Charge against the
Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read
with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, below Exh.7, to which the Respondent
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the Charge, the
Prosecution examined the following witnesses and brought on record the
relevant documents during the trial.
Sr. No. Panch witness
1. PW1 - Bharat Janardhan Bawale, the Complainant.
2. PW2 - Rajabhau Dattoba Pawar, the Panch Witness.
3. PW3 - Uddhav Radhakisan Ghuge, Sub-Divisional
Officer, who gave Sanction under the P.C. Act.
4. PW4 - Kalidas Shankarrao Suryawanshi, Dy.S.P.,
the Investigating Officer.
2.4. After the Prosecution closed its evidence, the statement of
the Respondent came to be recorded under Section 313(1)(b) of the
Cr.P.C. by the learned Trial Court. It was stated by the Respondent that,
SG Punde
4 APEAL278.2005.odt
in one trap laid against one Talathi in the year 1998, he acted as the
Panch Witness. In the said trap case, bearing Special Case No. 4 of 1999,
the Accused therein came to be acquitted and so the Dy.S.P. had a grudge
against him and so he was falsely implicated. The Complainant was
trying to give him Rs.100/- prior to the trap, however, he refused to
accept the same and pushed the note away. He stated that, neither he
demanded nor accepted the amount from the Complainant. Thereafter,
the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order by
appreciating the evidence on record.
3. It is submitted by the learned APP that, the evidence on
record goes to show that the Complainant and the Panch Witness did not
support the case of the Prosecution. There is evidence of the Investigating
Officer. He submitted that, on the basis of evidence availale on record,
the Appeal be allowed.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondent
that, the basic ingredients for the offence under which the Respondent
was charged were not established. The Prosecution failed to prove the
demand and acceptance of gratification. There is no iota of evidence to
prove the Charge and the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence available on record and acquitted the Respondent. No
interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Order. He relied
SG Punde
5 APEAL278.2005.odt
upon the Judgment in Bhaurao Marotrao Manekar Versus State of
Maharashtra, 1979 SCC Online Bom 201, on the point of Sanction for
the prosecution under the P.C. Act.
5. The provisions of Section 7 and Section 13 of the P.C. Act
pertain to offences relating to a Public Servant being bribed and criminal
misconduct by a Public Servant. The Prosecution's case largely hinges
on the testimony of PW1 - the Complainant and PW2 - the Panch
Witness. Though PW1 - the Complainant, in his evidence deposed that
on 30.07.2001, when he went to the office of the Respondent, he paid
Rs.100/- to the Respondent towards the documents as asked by him, this
evidence takes the case of the Prosecution nowhere as the Charge framed
against the Respondent was only in respect of the incident dated
31.07.2001 and there is Order by the learned Trial Court dated
20.03.2002 before the framing of the Charge to that effect. PW1 -
Complainant though deposed of several other aspects, he deposed that the
Respondent had not demanded the amount on 31.07.2001 and he paid the
amount to the Respondent on his own accord. His evidence goes to show
that, after PW1 - the Complainant received the documents from the
Respondent, he i.e. PW1 - Complainant, kept a note of Rs.100/- on the
table of Respondent and the Respondent did not accept the amount and
asked him to take back the note. It has come in the evidence of PW1 -
Complainant that, the Respondent threw the note from the table. PW1 -
SG Punde
6 APEAL278.2005.odt
Complainant, was cross-examined by the learned APP on behalf of the
Prosecution. However, nothing material has come from the cross-
examination to prove the Charge against the Respondent. The cross-
examination of PW1 - the Complainant done on behalf of the
Respondent shows that, the Respondent gave him the documents without
receiving any amount from him.
6. As regards the evidence of Panch Witness No. 2 is
concerned, it is no different than the evidence of PW1 - the Complainant.
Though he deposed in respect of several aspects in connection with
the pre-trap panchanama, going to the office of Respondent, asking by
the Respondent to the Complainant about the amount, asking PW1 -
Complainant to keep the note on his table and keeping of note by PW1 -
Complainant on his table and finding of blue shine on the fingers and
palm of left hand of the Respondent, it has come in his
cross-examination that, he did not listen to the conversation between the
Respondent and PW1 - Complainant. It has categorically come in his
cross-examination that, when PW1 - Complainant tendered the amount
to the Respondent, the Respondent threw it away from the table
immediately without accepting it. It has further come in his
cross-examination that, the Respondent neither demanded nor accepted
the amount from PW1 - the Complainant. It has further come in his
SG Punde
7 APEAL278.2005.odt
cross-examination that the Respondent did not ask PW1 - Complainant
in his presence whether the amount was brought.
7. The evidence of PW4 - the Investigating Officer is in
respect of receiving the complaint from PW1 - the Complainant,
arranging the trap, arresting the Respondent, completing the
investigation, and submitting the Charge-Sheet after Sanction. His
evidence that, the Respondent told him that the amount was in the paper
on the table would not be admissible. It has come in his cross-
examination that he could not hear the conversation between the
Respondent and PW1 - the Complainant, that the amount was not in the
hands of the Respondent, and that it was in a plain paper which was
folded from the middle. It has come in his cross-examination that it did
not strike to him at that time that, there was possibility that PW1 - the
Complainant must have kept that amount in that paper and the
Respondent must have refused to accept it.
8. The above discussed evidence takes the case of Prosecution
nowhere and fall short of establishing the Charge against the Respondent.
The very ingredients of the Sections under which the Charge was framed
are missing from the Prosecution evidence. The learned Trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evience available on record. As the evidence of
star witnesses does not prove the Charge, I need not discuss about the
SG Punde
8 APEAL278.2005.odt
aspect of Sanction. When the Prosecution has utterly failed to prove that
the Respondent accepted or attempted to obtain the amount from PW1 -
Complainant, the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act would not
come into play. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence available on
record, the impugned Judgment and Order of the learned Trial Court do
not call for any interference, and the Appeal fails. Hence, the following
order:
ORDER
[i] The Appeal is dismissed.
[ii] The Record and Proceeding be sent back to the learned Trial
Court.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE]
JUDGE
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/05/2025 14:22:41
SG Punde
