1 29-crappln3909-15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3909 OF 2015

The State of Maharashtra,

through Dy. Superintendent

of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Ahmednagar

..Applicant

Versus

Kailas Baburao Kapade

..Respondent

--

Mr.N.T.Bhagat, APP for applicant - State

Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for respondent - sole

--

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATE : JANUARY 07, 2016

PER COURT :

Heard both sides.

2]

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/

accused from the offences punishable under Section

7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, the State wants to prefer an

appeal and therefore, present application for

grant of leave to file appeal, is filed.

2 29-crappln3909-15.odt

3]

The prosecution case, in short, is that the

complainant – Uttamrao Nalge had purchased two

pieces of land at village Sangvi-Dumala on 13^th

January, 2011 and 4^th February, 2011 and wanted

that his name be entered in the revenue record and

7/12 extract be handed over to him. Therefore, he

met the present respondent, who was then working

as Kamgar Talathi of the village. The respondent,

however, made a demand of Rs.5,000/-. After

negotiation, it was reduced to Rs.2,000/-. The

respondent told the complainant that even the

certified copy of the 7/12 extract was ready, but

the same would be handed over to him upon payment

of the bribe amount. In the circumstances, the

complaint came to be filed with the office of the

Anti Corruption Bureau on 3^rd March, 2011.

4]

The Investigating Officer collected two panch

witnesses including PW 3 – Ramchandra and shadow

panch witness – Dilip Jagtap (who expired before

3 29-crappln3909-15.odt

the trial could begun). The trap was arranged on

4^th March, 2011. At the time of the trap, the

complainant first paid the amount towards revenue

assessment. A receipt was passed and the

respondent had handed over the certified copy of

the 7/12 extract the complainant and thereupon,

the respondent asked for payment of the bribe

amount. In the circumstances, the decoy money,

which was smeared with anthracene powder, was

handed over by the complainant to the respondent.

Necessary panchnama was, thereafter, prepared.

Sanction was obtained and the respondent was

prosecuted.

5]

The complainant deposed on the lines of the

prosecution case regarding his repeated demands

for carrying entries and passing of the certified

copy of the 7/12 extract and about the demands of

money made by the respondent time and again. He

also deposed about the transaction that took place

4 29-crappln3909-15.odt

at the time of the trap. During cross-examination,

the complainant hesitated in accepting that in the

year 2007, he was found in possession of the

illegal stock of sand in front of his house and

the Tahsildar had imposed fine upon him.

Further, ultimately, he admitted the said fact.

He also admitted that on 28^th May, 2008, he had

made a complaint against the present respondent

seeking his transfer. A true copy of the said

complaint was admitted by him at Exhibit 25.

Considering all these facts on record, learned

Special Judge has acquitted the respondent.

6]

Learned A.P.P. for the applicant – State

submitted that merely because the shadow panch

witness has died, it could not have been cause for

acquittal of the respondent. He submitted that the

deposition of the complainant would very well show

that after payment of the amount towards the

revenue assessment, the complainant had passed the

5 29-crappln3909-15.odt

decoy money and the same was lateron, found on the

person of the respondent.

7]

Upon hearing both sides, in my view, the

independent corrobora