1 Cri Appeal No. 386 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 386 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Dy. S.P. P.B. Sonar, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon Appellant V E R S U S 1. Shivaji Shankar Beldar, Aged 51 years, Occupation Service, Awal Karkun, Land Acquisition Office, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 2. Gokuldas Pahuji Khairnar, Aged 63 years, Occupation Social Work, Resident of Nandra, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon. Respondents Mr. T.S. Lodhe, APP for the appellant Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for the respondent No.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 3rd December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalgaon, dated 20th December, 2008, in Special Case No. 02 of 2008, acquitting the present respondents. 2. The respondents were charged for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant, one Dashrath. The bribe was demanded for delivery of cheque of land acquisition compensation to Dashrath. 3. The prosecution examined three witnesses. The first one was 2 Cri Appeal No. 386 of 2009 complainant Dashrath. He stated that when he and one Talathi Appa went to the office of the respondent No.1 for receiving the cheque of land acquisition compensation, the respondent No. 1 asked him to come with a sum of Rs.3,000/- and then he would hand over the cheque to him. He said, thereafter on two occasions, he met the respondent No.1 in his office and on both the occasions, the demand was made. He said, some time prior to 8th September, 2003, he met the respondent No.1. At that time, he handed over Rs.1,000/- to the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 asked him to bring Rs. 2,000/- more. He said, on 8th September, 2003, he went to Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon, and lodged his report. The Anti Corruption Bureau then arranged a trap. He said, the trap was arranged on 10th September, 2003. He said, accordingly, he and the shadow panch went to the office of the respondent No. 1 on 10th September, 2003. He said, the respondent No. 1 told them that he would go first to meet the Collector and they should wait. He said, thereafter, he and both panchas went to the office of the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the complainant stated as under : “Thereafter, when I went to give money to the accused No.1, he asked me why I did not bring Talathi Appa. That time, I told to him because the mother of Talathi Appa is seriously ill, hence, he could not come. When I was giving money to the accused No.1, he enquired about two persons alongwith me and I told him that they are my relatives. Thereafter accused No.1 asked me to pay money to Khairnar. Khairnar has accepted the said money. Thereafter, panchas gave signal, hence, Bhange Saheb came inside.” This narration does not mention that the respondent No. 1 demanded the bribe for handing over of the cheque. The narration shows that the complainant volunteered to hand over the tainted currency notes 3 Cri Appeal No. 386 of 2009 to the respondent No.1. 4. In this background, one must also see what the shadow panch has stated before the Court. He stated as under : “8. .....Thereafter, again we came to his office. That time complainant made demand of cheque to Beldar, to which Beldar said that we would take tea on the ground floor and accordingly we all three went to take the tea. We took tea and Beldar took milk. Complainant paid the bill of tea. Thereafter again we started towards the office of Beldar, and that time one person met us near the gate of the said office. He offered Namaskar to Beldar. That time Beldar told him that we would go in the office on upper storey. Thereafter we went to the office of Beldar and took seat on the chair. 9. That time complainant asked to Beldar to give his cheque. That time Beldar said to the complainant, to give money to the person (who came) along with us. Accordingly complainant has paid money to the said person. Thereafter said person had kept the said amount in the right side pocket of his Payjama.” 5. This witness apparently remained faithful to the prosecution case, and specifically stated that the respondent No. 1 demanded the bribe and then asked the complainant to hand over the bribe amount to the respondent No. 2. The prosecution should still fail to prove that the respondent No. 1 demanded the bribe to the complainant, because, as said above, the complainant did not speak about such demand. Thus, this material aspect of the prosecution case is not corroborated by the complainant. On this point alone, the prosecution case should fail. 6. The shadow panch damaged the prosecution case further by admitting in the cross-examination that the respondent No. 1 did not 4 Cri Appeal No. 386 of 2009 demand bribe to the complainant. He further admitted that the complainant voluntarily handed over the tainted currency notes to a Peon in the office of the respondent No. 1. He admitted further that he did not know the name of the Peon. It is apparent that this witness had in fact turned hostile to the prosecution case while giving these admissions during the cross-examination. But, no attempt was made on behalf of the State to cross-examine him. 7. The State’s appeal should therefore fail. The appeal stands dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondents are cancelled. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/criapl/386/09/8/12/10/ok