Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 642 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Pandurang Govind Raut

2009-05-08

V.K.TAHILRAMANI

body2009
Judgment : Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge Solapur in Special Case No.4 of 1992, this appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-State of Maharashtra. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the Respondent-original accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r.w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: On 6th October, 1991 at about 8 p.m. the complainant PW 2 Khalil Maindargi was returning from Asara society on his Luna moped bearing No.MVP-2742. At that time, the head light of his moped was out of order. When he was passing nearby the Industrial Estate Police Chowky, the Respondent was standing infront of the Chowky. The Respondent accosted the complainant and told the complainant that the head light of his Luna was not on. The Respondent took the complainant to the police chowky and took signature of the complainant on a piece of paper. It is alleged by the complainant that the Respondent then demanded Rs.25/-as bribe from him. The Respondent took the licence of the complainant and gave threat to complainant that if Rs.25/-was not given, he would not return the licence and he would send the case to the Court. The complainant had only Rs. 10/- with him which he offered to the Respondent. However, the accused told him that Rs.10/- was not enough and he should come with Rs.25/-. He asked him to come to the police chowky on the next day with the amount and on payment of amount of Rs.25/- he should collect the licence. The complainant thereafter approached Anti Corruption Bureau office. Trap came to be arranged. The complainant on the next day went to the accused and asked for his licence. The accused asked complainant whether he brought the money. The complainant replied that he had brought the money. Accused then handed over the licence of the complainant and he took the money. Thereafter, the accused came to be accosted by the raiding party. The amount of Rs. 25/- was found with him. Thereafter he came to be chargesheeted. 3. Charge came to be framed against the Respondent-accused under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, the accused came to be accosted by the raiding party. The amount of Rs. 25/- was found with him. Thereafter he came to be chargesheeted. 3. Charge came to be framed against the Respondent-accused under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Respondent-accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. It may be stated here that the accused has admitted receipt of the amount of Rs.25/- from the complainant, however, his defence is that the said amount was accepted by him towards fine amount for the offence committed by the complainant. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Special Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused. 4. I have heard Mr.Nakhwa, the learned APP for the State and Mr.Mohite, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-accused. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge as well as the record pertaining to this case. After carefully considering the matter, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order of acquittal does not require any interference. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. The material witnesses are P.W.2 Khalil who is the complainant and P.W.1 Shankar who was Panch who accompanied the complainant. 6. Complainant P.W.2 Khalil has stated that on 6th October, 1991 at about 8 p.m. he was returning from Asara society on his Luna moped bearing No.MVP-2742. At that time, the head light of his moped was out of order. When he was passing nearby the Industrial Estate Police Chowky, the Respondent was standing infront of the Chowky. The Respondent accosted the complainant and told the complainant that the head light of his Luna was not on. The Respondent took the complainant to the police chowky and took signature of the complainant on a piece of paper. It is alleged by the complainant that the Respondent then demanded Rs.25/-as bribe from him. The Respondent took the licence of the complainant and gave threat to complainant that if Rs.25/-is not given, he would not return the licence and he would send the case to the Court. The complainant had only Rs.10/- with him which he offered to the Respondent. However, the accused told him that Rs.10/- was not enough and he should come with Rs.25/-. The complainant had only Rs.10/- with him which he offered to the Respondent. However, the accused told him that Rs.10/- was not enough and he should come with Rs.25/-. He asked him to come to the police chowky on the next day with the amount and on payment of amount of Rs.25/- he should collect the licence. The complainant thereafter approached Anti Corruption Bureau office. Trap came to be arranged. The complainant on the next day went to the accused and asked for his licence. The accused asked complainant whether he brought the money. The complainant replied that he had brought the money. Accused then handed over the licence of the complainant and he took the money. Thereafter, the accused came to be accosted by the raiding party. The amount of Rs.25/- was found with him. 7. The defence of the accused is that Rs.25/-was the fine amount which the accused person had to pay to get the licence and he had asked for Rs.25/- towards the fine amount. It is not disputed that the amount of fine was Rs. 25/-. It may be noted that when the complainant offered RS. 10/-, the Respondent stated that the amount was not sufficient and he would have to give Rs.25/-. It is pertinent to note that when the Respondent came to be accosted by the raiding party, the bond which he had prepared in respect of the complainant and other papers pertaining to the offence committed by the complainant, were found with the accused. In such case, the defence taken by the accused that when the complainant gave him money, he accepted the same thinking it to be the fine amount which was to be deposited with the Court and hence, he accepted the said amount under the bonafide belief that the amount was paid by the complainant as fine amount which was to be deposited in the Court. This defence taken by the accused also receives supports from the evidence of the panch witness who has stated that when he and complainant approached the accused, the complainant directly gave Rs.25/- i.e. the panch witness has not stated that the complainant demanded the licence back from the accused and thereupon the accused demanded the amount. The evidence of the panch witness shows that when he and complainant approached the accused person, the complainant directly handed over Rs. The evidence of the panch witness shows that when he and complainant approached the accused person, the complainant directly handed over Rs. 25/-to the accused which the accused accepted. Looking to the evidence on record, the defence taken by the accused appears to be a probable defence. In such case, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th July, 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge Solapur in Special Case No.4 of 1992, does not require any interference. 7. Appeal dismissed.