STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 22/7/2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalna in Special Case No. 4 of 2002, which was tried for offence punishable under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) Present respondent was charge-sheeted on accusation that, he demanded bribe of Rs.1,000.00 for performing cesarean operation of daughter of complainant, who was admitted in the hospital on 31/8/2001. Out of the bribe amount, demand of Rs.600.00 was met, however as complainant was not interested in paying remaining amount, he had approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities and lodged complaint and after registration of the same, PW4 PI Satish Deshmukh carried out investigation and charge-sheeted accused. On facing trial, prosecution adduced evidence of 4 witnesses. Documentary evidence was also relied. However, after appreciating the same, learned trial Judge acquitted the accused by judgment and order dtd. 22/7/2004, holding that, prosecution failed to establish and prove the charges levelled against the accused.

(3.) According to learned APP, accused was working as Medical Officer in rural hospital. That, daughter of complainant was admitted for delivery, however, accused informed complainant that his daughter would be required to undergo cesarean operation and for that he would have to expend. He pointed out that, there was demand of Rs.1,000.00. That, complainant complied with part demand by paying Rs.600.00, accused persisted and consistently demanded remaining amount of Rs.400.00. Therefore complaint was lodged with ACB and trap was planned and laid, and accused was apprehended. His fingers were found to be carrying anthracene powder. Panch witness also supported the prosecution version. Unfortunately, complainant did not support the prosecution, but according to learned APP, considering the testimony of Investigating Officer and Sanctioning Authority, case ought to have been proved, but learned trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the same and has unfortunately acquitted the accused and hence he seeks to set aside the judgment by allowing the appeal.