THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs RAJARM DINGANNA BATTALWAR

preferred by the State.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:

. The complainant Datta Balaji Chavan has certain dispute with his neighbouring field owner Shankar Tukaram Chavan regarding approach road to his own land. Out of that dispute, said Shankar Chavan has abused the complainant and his son. He also filed complaint with Police Station Malakoli. In the situation, on 8^thSeptember,1989 the complainant and his son were called at Police Station. The present accused Rajaram was ASI at the Police Station. He warned that complainant would not be released on bail and there being holiday in the meantime, the Court would be able to pass any order only on Monday. Upon that, the complainant himself requested the respondent- accused to find out certain way. Upon that, respondent-accused asked him to pay illegal gratification of Rs.1000/-, which was finally settled at Rs.300/-. The complainant assured that

2

he would pay the said bribe later-on i.e. on next Tuesday. Thereupon, he filed complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau, Nanded.

. Mr. Misal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, of Anti Corruption Bureau, Nanded carried regular exercise. He collected the panch witnesses and drawn pre-trap panchnama. Anthracene powder was applied to the currency note of Rs.300/-. Panch witness No.1 was directed to accompany the complainant.

. The respondent-accused was at the canteen of the Police Station. There, accused-respondent again demanded illegal gratification and accepted tainted money in presence of the panch witness. Thereupon, the complainant had given signal to the raiding party and marked currency notes were found in possession of the respondent-accused. Under ultra violet light hands and pant pocket of the respondent gave positive result. In the circumstances, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

3

4. Before the leaned Special Judge, the complainant as well as panch witnesses were examined, besides other witnesses like Investigation Officer and Sanctioning Authority. The learned Special Judge found contradictions in the versions of the witnesses and granted benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused and acquitted him.

5. The leaned APP submits that the learned Special Judge ought to have taken into consideration that the certain contradictions are bound to occur in the oral versions of the witnesses, when the evidence is recorded after a lapse of certain period. According to him, the learned Special Judge ought not to have given much weightage to the contradictory statements.

6. On the other hand, Mr. H.I. Pathan, the learned counsel for respondent-accused submits that the versions given by the complainant as well as panch witnesses itself was sufficient to come

4

to the conclusion that there was no demand or acceptance of money at the time of trap. In the circumstance, he submits that in case of acquittal by the trial Court, when a reasonable and proper view is taken by the Court, no interference is warranted.

7. On the basis of this material following point arise for my determination.

1. Whether prosecution has proved that on 09.09.1989 the respondent being Assistant Sub - Inspector of Malakoli Police Station has made demand of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for showing favour to the complainant?

2. Whether the respondent-accused accepted amount of Rs.300/- as illegal gratification?

. My findings to the above points are in the negative for the reason stated below.

R E A S O N S

8. The leaned Special Judge has minutely

5

appreciated the evidence on record. Various contradictions as well as variance were considered. Salient feature of the case is that panch witness, namely, Shivram has clearly deposed that since in the canteen a radio was put on in full volume, he was not able to listen the talk between the complainant and respondent-accused. The prosecution case is that, in his presence demand was made. Thus, the case that the accused demanded money at the time of actual acceptance of alleged gratification is mired in suspicion for want of corroboration, from the mouth of the independent panch witness.

. Even if, we ignore the said circumstance, the complainant Datta himself has deposed that he did not remember as to whether the respondent-accused accepted the tainted money or not. He merely stated that he himself extended hands for payment of amount. The tainted money was found in the pant, which as kept in the canteen, while the respondent was wearing another pant.

6

9. The defence of the respondent-accused is that he is falsely implicated in the case as he wanted to take action against the complainant. His further case is that money was planted in the pant, which was not on his person.

10. If we take into consideration these shortcomings in the prosecution case, no error can be found in the reasoning forwarded by the leaned Special Judge in this regard.

11. In the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

[ M.T.JOSHI, J. ]

MTK

7