Cri. appeal no.355/2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 355/2001 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant. Versus 1 Babulal Trimbakrao Raut,Age : 60 years, Occu. Agri. Pensioner. 2 Rameshwar Bhanudas Shinde, Age : 38 years, Occu. Service, Both R/o Jalna Tq. & Dist. Jalnas. ...Respondents. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for appellant / State. Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 21st December, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalna dated 16/06/2001 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under section 7, 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Case No. 18/1997. The respondents at the relevant time were working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and Police constable of Ghansawangi Police Station District Jalna which has a outpost at village Ranjani. It is alleged that the respondents demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant and thereby committed the above mentioned offence. After going through the judgment of the learned judge of the trial Court, I found that on facts almost on all counts the learned judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution. The question therefore, is Cri. appeal no.355/2001 2 whether the learned judge had committed any apparent error or whether his appreciation was perverse. 2 The prosecution case mainly depends on the deposition of the main two witnesses namely the complainant prosecution witness No.1 and the shadow panch prosecution witness No.2. The prosecution witness No.1 the complainant in his deposition stated that due to an incident between him and his brother in law, his wife’s brother and father in law, his wife’s father dated 01/03/1997 he happened to go to Ghansawangi Police station for lodging his report. He said, he went to the Police Station on 2 or 3 occasions. Thereafter, he said, the P.S.O. told him that his complaint was handed over to the respondent No.1 for inquiry. He said, he therefore, went to Police out post Ranjani to meet the respondents. He said, he met them there. He said they made demand of Rs.1,000/- for making inquiry in his complaint. He said, on that day i.e. when he met them for the first time, he paid respondent No.2 a sum of Rs.500/-. He said, subsequently the respondents visited his village where he again paid Rs.100/- to the respondent No.2. He said, thereafter he went to the outpost on number of times but the respondents did not take any action on his complaint. He said, since they did not take the action, he approached the A.C.B. and filed his report, saying that the respondent No.1 had made a demand of bribe of Rs.400/-. Thereafter, he said the trap was arranged. He said, as per the trap he and the shadow panch went to the outpost at about 12.00 noon to 1.00 p.m.. He said, they found the respondent No.2 present in the outpost. He said, he requested the respondent No.2 that he should accept the amount of bribe and do the work. He said, the respondent No.2 however did not accept the amount, saying that since the respondent No.1 was not Cri. appeal no.355/2001 3 there, he would not commit anything. He said, the respondent No.2 suggested him to await for the respondent No.1 to come to the Police outpost. He said, thereafter, the respondent No.1 came. He said, he asked the respondent No.1 to accept the bribe and do his work. He said, the respondent No.1 agreed to do so. He said, he then handed over tainted currency notes of Rs.400/- to the respondent No.1. He said, the respondent No.1 accepted the currency notes and put them in his pocket. He said, thereafter, he made predetermined signal to the raiding party and they caught the respondents. As against this, the shadow panch has a different story. He said, he agreed to work as shadow panch in this case and on 26/03/1997 he agreed to take part in the trap. He said, he and the complainant on that day reached Ranjani police outpost at about 2.00 p.m.. He said, they found the respondent No.2 present in the Police chowki but the respondent No.1 was not there. He said, the complainant then took out the tainted currency notes from his chest pocket and offered them to the respondent No.2. He said, the respondent No. 2 did not accept the amount and told the complainant to hand them over to the respondent No.1. He said, since the respondent No.1 was not present in the outpost, he and the complainant waited for him there. He said, after 10- 15 minutes, the respondent No.1 came there. He said, the complainant and respondent No.1 then came inside the room of the outpost and had conversation in Hindi language. He said, at that time, he was standing at the door. He said, he saw that the complainant took out the tainted currency notes from his pocket and handed them over to the respondent No.1 and he accepted it. He said, the respondent No.1 kept the tainted currency notes in his left side chest pocket. He said, as soon as the respondent No.1 saw the members of Cri. appeal no.355/2001 4 raiding party, he took out the currency notes from his pocket and put them on the table. He said, the policemen none-the-less rushed and held the hands of the respondent No.1 and thereafter completed the procedure of panchanama etc.. The learned judge of the trial Court held that the complainant had in fact no reason to offer the bribe to the respondent because his complaint on 01/03/1997 was already filed by the police as non cognizable one. The learned judge also held after perusal of the original complaint that the complainant was given clear understanding by the police then and there that he would better to go to the Court against his brother in law and father-in-law. The learned judge thus held that the story that followed thereafter that the complainant persuaded the respondents to take action against his brother in law and father in law is not believable. The learned judge of the lower court even held that the prosecution by not examining surveyor the cousin of the complainant failed to corroborate the complainant’s case that prior to trap the respondents demanded bribe from him. The reasons mentioned by the learned judge for coming to these conclusions are not wrong or perverse. I might have believed the part of the prosecution case that the respondents did demand the bribe and pursuant to the demand, the complainant had a reason to file a report to the A.C.B.. But since this is a appeal against acquittal, I am not inclined to interfere in the finding recorded by the learned judge of the lower Court on these points. 3 In my view, the case of the prosecution should fail because of its failure to prove the demand of the bribe made by the respondent No.1 at the time of trap. Both the prosecution witnesses did not specifically say that the respondent no.1 after mentioning that Cri. appeal no.355/2001 5 the complainant had brought the previously demanded bribe amount of Rs.400/-, demanded the same to him. It seems the complainant volunteered and offered the amount to the respondent No.1 which he accepted, in his hand. The shadow panch did not hear what transpired between the complainant and the respondent No.1 immediately before the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the respondent No.1. So, he could not say as to whether the respondent No.1 actually demanded the bribe and then he accepted the same. The prosecution case should therefore fail, mainly because of this lapse. The appeal should therefore, fail. ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) ts k/ok