LAWS(BOM)-2024-6-20

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SUNIL RAJARAM JOSHI

Decided On June 12, 2024
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
V/S
Sunil Rajaram Joshi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is hereby seeking leave to challenge the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case ACB No.22 of 2012, dtd. 23/3/2023, by which present respondent stood acquitted from the offence punishable under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) read with sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act).

(2.) In support of leave, learned APP for State pointed out that, complaint was received against present respondent for demanding illegal gratification to favour brother of complainant by not making him to suffer P.C.R. and rather sending him to M.C.R. on account of his arrest in offence under sec. 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Learned APP pointed out that, all required ingredients for attracting charges were very much available. Complainant and shadow panch are both consistent in their testimonies. That, sanctioning authority had applied its mind and had accorded sanction. In spite of offence being clearly made out, learned trial court has acquitted the accused from all the charges. According to learned APP, there is improper appreciation of both, evidence as well as law. That, there is a good case on merits in appeal and hence learned APP seeks leave.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent pointed out that, prosecution had miserably failed to make out the case against the respondent. It is pointed out that, demand which is sine qua non has not been proved. That, the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts of the case. That, there was no corroboration to the testimony of complainant. Cross of both, complainant as well as panch witness has rendered the case of prosecution weak. He lastly pointed out that, even there is improper application of mind and order of sanction is also mechanical. Taking into consideration such evidence on record, learned trial court had correctly acquitted the respondent accused. Therefore, according to him, there is no merit in the application and he prays to dismiss the application.