STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHIVLAL CHANDU RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State being aggrieved by the judgment of the special Judge, Jalna, dated 16-2-2005 in Special Case No. 6 of 2001, acquitting the respondent accused for offence punishable under sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by this appeal challenges the aforesaid judgment.

(2.) Trial Court had principally acquitted the respondent-accused, who had conducted a raid on the premises of the complainant P. W. 1 Santosh, on the ground that there was evidence to indicate that the tainted currency notes had been planted by the complainant and kept beneath a register on the table of the respondent-accused. In this behalf a reference may usefully be made to the testimony of P. W. 1 Santosh. P. W. 1 Santosh has admitted in the cross-examination that the accused had informed the raiding party that P. W. I Santosh had planted the amount under the file without his knowledge. He feigned ignorance to the question as to whether Dy. Superintendent of Police had asked the accused to lift the file pad and to lift the amount from the table. The evidence of P. W. 3 Anil, a panch witness who was directed to accompany the complainant is to the effect that when they had gone in the office of the respondent-accused, the respondent-accused had asked the panch to wait outside, and therefore, he has not witnessed the actual demand and acceptance of the aforesaid tainted currency note. P. W. 2 Ashok, however, states that the complainant on coming out of the office of the accused had given the agreed signal to the raiding party. He has also admitted that certain people were sitting in the office of the accused when he and complainant had gone inside the office. Prosecution has examined P. W. 3 Anil dasu Chavan who was serving as Kamgar Talathi. He is a prosecution witness and in the examination-in-chief itself he states that he had seen that the complainant giving money to the accused and the accused refusing to accept the said amount. The complainant had thereafter kept the said amount on the table and the accused had kept the file on the aforesaid amount. In cross-examination, however, he has stated that the complainant had insisted the accused twice to accept the amount. He has also admitted that on both the occasions, the accused had told the complainant that he had not demanded the money. He has further admitted that while the accused was examining the register the complainant had kept the amount under the file. He has further admitted that thereafter the police had arrived there and had asked the accused to lift the file and had asked the accused to hand over the amount. The accused had thereafter handed over the amount to the police. Cross-examination of P. W. 3 Anil, would therefore clearly disclose that the grievance alleged to have been made by the respondent-accused to the raiding party spontaneously after the raid that the complainant had planted the money beneath the file appears to be genuine. Prosecution has examined p. W. 3 Anil as its witness and no effort was made to declare P. W. 3 Anil hostile and to cross-examine him. Cross-examination of P. W. 3 Anil, therefore, clearly washes away the entire prosecution case about the accused allegedly demanding the aforesaid amount and asking the complainant to place the tainted currency notes beneath the file. There is no independent corroboration to the alleged demand made by the accused and there is also no independent corroboration to the alleged acceptance of the tainted currency notes by the accused pursuant to the demand. The complainant has emerged as a solitary witness and his uncorroborated testimony coupled with the admissions elicited in the testimony of P. W. 3 Anil therefore warranted the trial Court in taking the view that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) With the assistance of the learned A. P. P. appearing on behalf of the appellant-State and Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, I have perused the judgment and I have also perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. According to me, the benefit extended by the trial Court cannot be said to be misplaced. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record and I do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal.