PRASHANT GOPALRAO CHANDANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant/convicted Accused who is de-facto Complainant in case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ["PC Act"] and learned APP.

(2.) If an Accused is acquitted on account of lapses in investigation and lacunae in the evidence, Court cannot be blamed. However, when case results into acquittal due to ignorance of the Judicial Officer, it pains us. Similar thing has happened in this case. On one hand, by accepting the defence raised by the original Accused, trial Court acquitted Accused but on same evidence, convicted the Complainant.

(3.) In fact, this Appellant was instrumental in launching the prosecution under the provision of Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1) (d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act against one Dattajirao Vasantrao Patil and Special Case No. 2 of 1993 was initiated in Court of Special Judge - Kolhapur. However, when the question of giving evidence had arisen, this Appellant has cleverly supported the case of the prosecution while giving examination-in-chief. However, when he was cross-examined by Accused Dattajirao V. Patil, he deposed that in fact he owes the amount to the Accused and whatever amount he has parted away on the date of the trap on 15/5/1992 was not towards the illegal gratification, but it was towards repayment of the loan.