IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
S.M. Gavhane, J.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Dy Superintendent Of Police,anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmednagar - Appellant
Versus
Baburao Dipaji Pawar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2016
Decided On : 14-08-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 109 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 12 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) - Corrupt and illegal means - Demanded bribe - Committed criminal misconduct - Charged - Appeal against acquittal - Complainant (PW-1) was residing and he was a painting contractor - Accused No.1 was working as Assistant Commissioner, Class-II in Fisheries Department , accused No.2 was working as Assistant Fisheries Officer, Class-III at and accused No.3, who is a private person was running a pan stall in premises of the Office of accused Nos.1 and 2, at relevant time of incident - Complainant lodged complaint (Exh.41) with Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the "ACB Office") on contending that he was allotted tender of work of epoxy cementing to tanks of Chinese Hatcheries and hatching eggs, in month per sq.mtr.through Office of Fisheries Department - Whether prosecution has proved that accused Nos.1 and 2, public servant demanded bribe - Whether prosecution has proved that on, accused Nos.1 and 2 accepted through accused No.3 as a pecuniary advantage by using corrupt and illegal means and thereby committed criminal misconduct - Whether prosecution has proved that on accused No.3 at his Pan Tapari accepted bribe amount on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 2 and thus abetted accused Nos.1 and 2 in commission of offence under Section 7 and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 12 of Act? – Held, In such circumstances, when on the basis of evidence of complainant and panch No.1, prosecution has failed to prove demands of bribe made by accused Nos.1 and 2 from complainant on different dates, referred earlier and when it is not case that accused Nos.1 and 2 accepted bribe amount and it was recovered from them and when it cannot be said that prosecution has proved beyond doubt acceptance of bribe by accused No.3 and recovery of it from him, for accused Nos.1 and 2, offences alleged against all accused are not attracted, there is no need to remand matter to trial court as per alternative submission made by learned APP appearing for appellant-State to record evidence of investigating officer - Court hold that prosecution has failed to prove offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 12(2) of Act against accused Nos.1 and 2 and offences punishable under Sections 12 of Act and under Section 109 of IPC against accused No.3 - Trial Court has rightly held so - This being position, there is no ground to interfere with impugned judgment and order of acquittal of accused of offences with which, they were charged - Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S. M. Gavhane, J. - The appellant-State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "accused Nos.1 to 3") of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") by the Judge, Special Court (ACB), Ahmednagar as per the judgment and order dated 31.07.2015 in Special Case No.11 of 2012.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short, are as under:
a) At the relevant time of incident, complainant-Sandip Vishnupant Dalavi (PW-1) was residing in Vikrant Chowk, Chaupati Karanja, Ahmednagar and he was a painting contractor. Accused No.1 Baburao Dipaji Pawar was working as Assistant Commissioner, Class-II in Fisheries Department at Ahmednagar, accused No.2 Sayyad Irfan Umar was working as Assistant Fisheries Officer, Class-III at Ahmednagar and accused No.3 Shaikh Abdul Kadir Fakir Mohammad, who is a private person was running a pan stall in the premises of the Office of accused Nos.1 and 2, at the relevant time of incident.
b) The complainant lodged complaint (Exh.41) with Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the "ACB Office") on 17.01.2011 contending that he was allotted the tender of work of epoxy cementing to the tanks of Chinese Hatcheries and hatching eggs at Mulanagar, in the month of May, 2009 @ Rs.465/- per sq.mtr.through the Office of the Fisheries Department at Ahmednagar. He completed said work in July, 2009 and accordingly, he obtained certificate from Fisheries Officer, Mulanagar.
Thereafter, he received payment of Rs.20,000/- by cheque from Deputy Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Shri.Dangare. In the meanwhile, Shri. Dangare was transferred. Thereafter, in the month of August, accused No.1 was posted as a Deputy Commissioner, Fisheries Department at Ahmednagar. On 16.11.2010, he prepared the bill of his remaining work and submitted with Fisheries Department, Ahmednagar. He met accused No.1, Deputy Commissioner and inquired about his bill of Rs.1,00,000/-. At that time, accused No.1 asked him, how much amount will he give to him to make the payment.
c) It is alleged that thereafter, on 20.12.2012, he received his bill by post. He visited Building and Construction Department at Rahuri and met to Site Engineer, Shri.Mahadik. Thereafter, on 24.12.2012, he visited Fisheries Department Office, Ahmednagar and met accused No.1. At that time, accused No.1 told him that he will clear his bill and to talk with accused No.2. He met accused No.2. At that time, accused No.2 told him to give 25% of the amount of the bill of Rs.1,00,000/-, i.e. Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, he lodged complaint with ACB Office.
d) After receiving the complaint as above, investigating officer, Shri.Dhopavkar issued a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and called two panch witnesses, namely, Shri.D.S. Patel (PW-3) and Shri.S.S. Kadus, on 17.01.2011. They were introduced with the complainant. The complainant told his grievance to them, made in the complaint and as a mark of endorsement, they had signed on the complaint, lodged by the complainant. Thereafter, for conducting verification, panch No.1 Patel (PW-3) along with the complainant proceeded towards the office of Fisheries Department, Ahmednagar. They met accused No.2 and initiated talk about the bill of the complainant. At that time, accused No.2 said that, accused No.1 requires 25% of bill amount of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000/- and called the complainant on the next day. Thereafter, they came back to the ACB Office. Accordingly, verification panchanama Exh.54 was prepared.
e) On 18.01.2011, the complainant produced an amount of Rs.10,000/-, consisting 20 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination in the ACB Office. Anthracene powder was applied to all the said currency notes and the demonstra
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.