High Court
Legal Reasoning
CriAppeal-249-2013-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2013The State of Maharashtra,Through Dy.S.P.,Anti Corruption Bureau,Jalgaon.… AppellantVersusRavindra Pitambar BahadareAge 50 years, Occu. Service,R/o Phupani, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon.… Respondent[Orig. Accused]…..Mr. D. R. Korade, APP for the Appellant-State.Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the Respondent...... CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on: 24.09.2025Pronounced on: 03.10.2025JUDGMENT : 1.The State appeal hereby takes exception to the judgment andorder dated 14.05.2012 passed by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 7 of 2010acquitting the accused from charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short, “PC Act”]. CriAppeal-249-2013-2- 2.In nutshell, the case of prosecution in trial court was that, theACB authorities were in receipt of complaint from PW1 Sonawaneregarding present respondent-accused, working as a Talathi,demanded bribe for taking necessary entry in 7/12 extract on thestrength of alleged partition deed between complainant and his wife,and for doing the needful, he initially demanded Rs.25,000/- andhimself brought down the figure to Rs.13,000/- and then finally toRs.3,000/-.As complainant PW1 was not willing to pay bribe, he lodgedreport with ACB authorities vide complaint Exhibit 14, on the basis ofwhich the Investigating Officer planned, arranged and executed trap.After obtaining sanction, accused was made to face trial before theSpecial Court vide above Special Case. Five witnesses were examined by prosecution in support oftheir contention. Defence also adduced evidence of one witness. Afterappreciating the said evidence, learned trial court vide abovejudgment, was pleased to acquit the accused on the ground that casehas not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that, defence ofaccused is probabilized.Feeling aggrieved by the above, the State has come up inappeal. CriAppeal-249-2013-3- 3.Learned APP would point out that de facto complainant hadapproached accused, who was a Talathi in Tahsil office, for takingentry of partition deed executed between complainant and his wife.That, for doing said official work, demand of Rs.25,000/- was raisedand accused himself, on next occasion, questioned complainantwhether amount was too much for him and on third occasion, hehimself reduced amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.3,000/- and directedaccused to pay him bribe. 4.Learned APP further pointed out that PW1 promptlyapproached ACB authorities about demand of illegal gratification.That, the Investigating Officer noted report, summoned pancha,introduced him to the complainant, who appraised him too regardingabove demand and that, after giving necessary instructions, trap wasplanned and tainted currency was handed over with specificinstructions to pay bribe on demand and raiding party was waiting inlay by laying the trap. That, while complainant was accompanied bythe shadow pancha, there was demand as well as acceptance andtherefore, trap was executed and accused was apprehended. Thus,according to learned APP, necessary ingredients for attracting thecharges for demanding illegal gratification and accepting it too, arecompletely available here. He further submitted that both,
Legal Reasoning
CriAppeal-249-2013-4- complainant and shadow pancha, are unanimously deposing aboutdemand as well as acceptance. This crucial aspect has not beenconsidered by the learned trial Judge. 5.Learned APP pointed out that undue importance is given to theaspect of demand by way of gestures when it was clearly indicative ofmoney being demanded, and failure to reflect to that extent in thespot panchanama. Therefore for above reasons, learned APP urges toallow the appeal by interfering and setting aside the impugnedjudgment.6.In answer to above, learned defence counsel pointed out that,here, very demand has not been cogently proved. That, complainantwho was in police department and was in a habit of grabbing land,was facing several proceedings. That, his demand in that connectionwas not admitted by respondent accused and therefore falsecomplaint has been lodged to implicate him out of annoyance.Learned counsel further pointed out that here, there is allegeddemand by making gestures, but same is not reflected in the spotpanchanama which was drawn immediately after alleged trap and thevery Investigating Officer has admitted to that extent. CriAppeal-249-2013-5- 7.Learned counsel for the respondent-accused further pointed outthat it is a case of thrusting and specific defence set up by accused intrial court is in that direction and even witness DW1 has beenexamined on such count. Learned counsel pointed out that evidenceof DW1 has not been rendered doubtful. Therefore, defence hassucceeded in discharging their onus and on the contrary, prosecutionhas failed to discharge their primary burden of establishing the casebeyond reasonable doubt. For above reasons, learned counsel for therespondent-accused prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.8.Re-appreciated the entire evidence, more particularly on thelines of grounds raised by the prosecution.9.As usual, crucial evidence is of de facto complainant PW1 andthe shadow pancha PW2, as it is fairly settled that in cases of suchnature, complainant is always looked upon as an interested witnessand therefore, by way of abundant precaution, corroboration isinsisted for, i.e. from the shadow pancha who is supposed to be in thecompany of complainant at the time of trap. CriAppeal-249-2013-6- 10.Visited the evidence of PW1 complainant at Exhibit 13. Thesubstance of his evidence is that, for effecting entry of partition deedexecuted between himself and his wife on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-,he had approached accused Talathi on 19.11.2009 and claims that hecould not meet accused and therefore he developed contact withaccused on cell phone. That time, accused allegedly told him that hewould meet him near Neharu statue and accordingly, complainantwent there and claims that, for forwarding report regarding partition,demand of Rs.25,000/- was raised. He further stated that on28.01.2010, accused was approached again and that time accusedhimself asked whether amount of Rs.25,000/- is more for him andthen reduced the figure to Rs.13,000/-. As complainant allegedly toldhim that he is unable to pay that much amount also, accused asked topay Rs.3,000/- for issuing notice and therefore, report to that extentwas lodged (Exhibit 14). However, as pointed, said report is not of28.01.2010 but is apparently of 30.01.2010. Then he deposed abouthe and pancha visiting Talathi office, approaching accused, andclaims that when he asked about his work, accused said whether hiswork was done as was told, and was duly informed about moneywould be brought by his son. Thereupon, accused allegedly told himto come after some time. Again after a while, he claims that he andpancha approached accused and at that time, accused allegedly made CriAppeal-249-2013-7- gestures with hand and also said that “iSls nsoqu Vkdk” and so, he removedthe tainted currency which was allegedly counted by accused andpocketed, followed by relay of signal and apprehension of accused.Initial cross is on the alleged partition deed and in relevantcross, complainant has been questioned that, when demand wasraised on 19.011.2009, why no complaint was made till 28.01.2010,and answer to this question given by the complainant is that, on19.11.2009 he had made oral complaint to the Dy.S.P. Deshmukh inhis office. In the remaining cross, he has admitted about proceedingsinitiated against him on various grounds. He has been given a directsuggestion of amount being thrust, which is denied by him. 11.Another crucial witness is PW2 Vijay Hiware, shadow panchaand he, in his evidence at Exhibit 18, also stated that when he andcomplainant approached accused in Talathi office, accused told themto wait for some time as there was rush in the office and then Talathimade gestures and also said to complainant “vkiys dk; >kys?”. After awhile, when they went back, complainant was again asked whetherhis son has arrived, upon which complainant told accused that his sonhas come and also brought money, and it was removed and handedover to accused, who counted it and pocketed it. CriAppeal-249-2013-8- Cross of this witness is mainly on the point of, whether writtencomplaint was shown to him, what was the date of of applicationmoved by complaint and whether there was any inquiry by Dy.S.P.with the complainant for not lodging report between 06.08.2009 to19.11.2009. He answered that Dy.S.P. did not note the phone numberof complaint. Further cross is on the geographical state of the office ofTalathi, writing of panchanama, time required for writingpanchanama, time of reaching Jalgaon. In para 13, this witness hasanswered that this was the fifth time he was giving evidence in theCourt. Rest is all denial.12.Therefore, on meticulous re-appreciation of above evidence ofPW1 and PW2, the distinct features which are emerging are that,firstly, alleged demand was raised on 19.11.2009, however, reportExhibit 14 is lodged after a gap of more than two months i.e. on30.01.2010. Secondly, both, PW1 and PW2 speak about demandbeing made by hand gestures and they also reproduced what accusedalleged said, but said utterance is apparently distinct. Therefore, onthe point of demand, as pointed, there is material about makingdemand by way of gestures and evidence on that count is notcredible. CriAppeal-249-2013-9- 13.As regards the acceptance is concerned, specific defence set uphere is that, amount was thrust, and there is specific suggestion alsoon such lines to both the witnesses, though they have apparentlydenied the same. However, here, defence has adduced evidence ofDW1 Ratilal Sapkale who was also allegedly a visitor to the office andwho had went to Tahsil office to seek documents. He has stated aboutthe act of deliberately thrusting money and accused taking out thesame to see as to what was put by complainant in his pocket.Therefore, there is material suggesting attempt to thrust bribeamount. Defence is merely expected to probabilize their defence andnot expected to prove defence with said degree, with whichprosecution is expected to substantiate their case.14.Apart from above defence, accused has also cross-examinedwitnesses on the point of complainant to be working in policedepartment and misusing his powers for grabbing lands and severalcomplaints being lodged to that extent, which he too has admittedwhile facing cross. Specific case of defence is that complainant hadasked accused to do some type of work pertaining to land, whichaccused had allegedly refused. Therefore, coupled with above, there isalso reason for annoyance of complainant. CriAppeal-249-2013-10- 15.For above reasons, case of prosecution is not proved beyondreasonable doubt and has rather come under shadow of doubts forabove said reasons. The view taken by learned Trial Judge is the onlyprobable view that could emerge with such quality of evidence. Nocase made out on merits. Hence, following order is passed :ORDERThe Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre