1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 440 OF 2010 Bapurao s/o Laxman Kurumkar, Aged 55 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Mundhekar Wadi, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.R.Korde, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 6th May, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 22nd March, 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Special Case No. 04 of 2007, rejecting the petitioner’s application for discharge. 3. The facts of this case leading to the writ petition are quite peculiar. The petitioner / accused is charged under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 8 is providing punishment for abetment of offences made punishable under the provisions of the Act. On the face of it, the petitioner does not appear to have committed any offence. 2 The prosecution case is as under : 4. One Jagannath wanted to get his mutation entry, in respect of the certain transaction from one Kshirsagar, a Talathi of village Mundhekar Wadi. Despite of requests made to the Talathi, he delayed the work, and ultimately, demanded illegal gratification from Jagannath. Jagannath agreed to pay the amount, but made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau. The Anti Corruption Bureau accordingly arranged a trap and sent Jagannath and a shadow panch to Talathi Kshirsagar, at his office, on 11th May, 2006, at about 09.30 a.m. At that time, Talathi Kshirsagar was sitting in his office and number of people were waiting in front of him to get their work done. The present petitioner was also sitting in front of the Talathi for getting his work done. At that time, Jagannath and the shadow panch approached the Talathi and tried to offer the bribe amount to him. Surprisingly, Talathi refused to accept the amount, and said that, the work would be done in due course and Jagannath would have to wait for some time. The petitioner was watching this exchange, suddenly, it seems, he offered his help to Jagannath to get his work done from the Circle Inspector, a superior officer to the Talathi. He said to him that Jagannath should give him the money and he would get the work done through the Circle Inspector. Obviously, Jagannath was hesitant in having conversation with the petitioner, but the petitioner insisted that he should hand over the money to him. Due to this solicitation, 3 ultimately, Jagannath succumbed and handed over the amount to the petitioner. No sooner the petitioner took the money in his hand, the raiding party arrived and caught the petitioner. The petitioner is thus charged under Section 8 of the Act. 5. On the face of it, the petitioner had not committed any offence of abetment. It is neither the abetment of the offence, which Talathi Kshirsagar was about to commit, and, it is not the case of the prosecution that the Circle Inspector had sent the petitioner, as his agent or friend, to solicit work from people like Jagannath. The prosecution has not made the Circle Inspector an accused. It is thus clear that the petitioner has not committed any offence and the entire case against him is unfounded. Therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. a. The petition is allowed. b. Proceedings in Special Case No. 04 of 2007 stands quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/criwp/440/10