STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMESH TUKARAM WAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the prosecution challenging the acquittal of the respondent in Special Case (PCA) No.4/2012 by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Jalna on 04.03.2015, thereby acquitting him from the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, "P.C. Act").

(2.) The present respondent i.e. original accused is a Police Head Constable, serving with Jalna Taluka Police Station in October, 2011.

(3.) Original complainant Gunappa Babuappa Barshe was resident of village Mandwa, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna. He is an agriculturist. He lodged complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalna on 12.10.2011 contending, that he has five brothers, who are residing separately with their respective family members. The wife of the complainant is the owner of 35 R land bearing Gat No.143 in village Mandwa. In the same Gat number, 92 R land is in the name of father of the complainant and it was in possession of Ramappa-brother of the complainant. The complainant contended, that he had dispute with his brother, in connection with the boundary of the lands from the said Gat number. When such dispute arose on 05.10.2011 and he was abused by his brother Ramappa and sons of brother Ramappa, the said dispute was resolved by other brothers and nephew. Complainant had gone to Jalna Police Station and lodged complaint against his brother Ramappa and his three sons, which was in respect of non cognizable offence. When he was coming out of the Police Station, his brother Ramappa went inside the Police Station. Thereafter, when he was in Jalna city itself, at that time, the present accused gave a phone call to him and disclosed that offence has been registered against him by Ramappa and he should come to Police Station, however, he did not go. Accused went to complainant's house in Mandwa at about 8.00 p.m. on 06.10.2011 and asked, as to why he has not visited the Police Station though informed on phone. It was also informed that Ramappa has given complaint against him, his two brothers and nephew. Accused then asked all those four persons to come to Police Station on the next day. Complainant and his younger brother Bhimappa went to Police Station on 07.10.2011 and they met accused. It was told, that it was a trifle dispute, however, Ramappa has given a false complaint. But then accused told, that since offence has been registered they would be required to be arrested. When complainant requested that the accused shall not arrest them, then accused told, that the way out is, that if they pay Rs.20,000/- to him, he would produce them before the Court immediately after arrest and immediately they would be released thereafter on bail. Complainant told, that they are poor persons and cannot afford to give amount. Then accused told, that the said amount can be negotiated. The complainant left Police Station by stating, that he would make arrangement for money within 4-5 days. Accused had thereafter given phone call on the mobile of Bhimappa 4- 5 times and demanded the amount. However, as the amount was not arranged they did not contact accused. Complainant then met accused in Police Station on 12.10.2011 and told, that they cannot arrange for the money as told by him, and therefore, he should lower the amount. Initially the accused lowered it to Rs.10,000/- and thereafter the amount was settled at Rs.7,000/-. It was told by the accused, that minimum amount should be given to him then only he would show their arrest and send them for bail to the Court. He threatened, that if amount is not given then after arrest they would be put in lockup and would be produced only on the next day. As no option was left, the complainant agreed to give the amount. But promised that it would be given till 11.00 a.m. on the next day. In the meanwhile the complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged the complaint.