STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BAPURAO RAMDAS PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant / State through Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalna, has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent / accused from the offence under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), recorded by the learned Special Judge, Jalna in Special Case No.5 of 2002 dtd. 05/03/2005.

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant - Sakharam Rustum Mandal, resident of Ambad, was running his vehicle Tempo Trax No.Mh-21-W-196 on Jalna to Ambad Route for 10 to 12 months before the incident, for carrying passengers. The respondent / accused was attached to Ambad Police Station at the relevant time and he made frequent demands of Hapta from the complainant, failing which he threatened the complainant to park the vehicle at Ambad Police Station. On 07/03/2002 at about 7.00 a.m. the complainant was present at Ambad bus-stand with his vehicle. At about 10.00 a.m. the complainant and his friend Natha Rathod, resident of Masai Tanda, was waiting for his turn. The respondent / accused came there and shouted at the complainant as to why he parked his vehicle at bus-stand as he had not paid Hapta. The respondent / accused also told the complainant to take the vehicle to the police station. Accordingly, the complainant parked his vehicle in the compound of Ambad Police Station. The complainant at the relevant time, requested the respondent / accused for not lodge a false case against him, but the respondent / accused demanded bribe of Rs.1,400.00 for not to issue a challan on his vehicle. Though the complainant was unable to pay the amount, but promised the respondent / accused to pay the same on next day i.e. 08/03/2002. Then the complainant lodged the report with Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Aurangabad on 07/03/2002 and accordingly Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Idhate told the complainant to come on next day. Accordingly, on 08/03/2002 at about 7.30 a.m. the complainant and panchas appeared in the Anti Corruption Bureau Office at Aurangabad and the trap was set. Thereafter, at about 9.30 a.m. on the same day, the complainant, panchas and members of raiding party started from Aurangabad and reached at Ambad at about 11.30 a.m. It was revealed that the respondent / accused was at Z. P. High School, Ambad and accordingly, when the complainant and panchas approached him there, he demanded the bribe amount and accepted the same. Thereafter, the raiding party caught the respondent / accused on the spot alongwith the bribe money and subsequent formalities were done. The complaint was lodged against the respondent / accused and after investigation, the respondent / accused was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence. The learned trial court i.e. the learned Special Judge, Jalna though conducted the trial, but acquitted the respondent /accused. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) The learned APP submits that the complainant has deposed as per the prosecution story and stated that the respondent / accused had demanded bribe of Rs.1,400.00 for not to register crime against him in respect of Tempo Trax, whch was kept in the Ambad Police Station. He pointed out that the trap was successful and Anthracene powder was also detected on the fingers of the respondent / accused. The evidence of the panch witness i.e. panch No.1 also corroborated the version of the complainant. Therefore, when the respondent / accused was caught with the bribe money, the leaned trial court erroneously acquitted him from the serious offence. He pointed out that the learned trial court acquitted the respondent / accused merely on the ground that the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and panch witness could not be brought on record due to the death of investigating officer as the FIR lodged by him. The learned APP pointed out that the complaint lodged by the complainant is very much proved and therefore, the aforesaid reason for acquittal hardly matters. According to him, the independent witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4, who were on Bandobast at the time of acceptance of the bribe amount, have in fact supported the prosecution case. The leaned APP also pointed out that PW-6 i.e. the police personnel, who carried out partial investigation, has also deposed about the establishment of guilt of the respondent / accused. He pointed out that the learned trial court had also considered the sanction accorded being a valid one. He further, pointed out that the defence of the respondent / accused that the bribe amount was in fact thrusted into his pocket, is highly improbable since the fingers of the respondent / accused had also shown presence of Anthracene powder. Thus, he contended that the learned trial court should have convicted the respondent / accused. As such, he prayed for setting aside the acquittal of the respondent / accused. In support of his submissions, the learned APP relied on following judgments: