Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2002. Case: State of Maharashtra Vs Pradeep Vishwasrao Jadhav and Ors. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2002
Party Name:State of Maharashtra Vs Pradeep Vishwasrao Jadhav and Ors
Counsel:For Appellant: Amit Palkar, Adv.
Judges:Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.
Issue:Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 7
Judgement Date:May 11, 2017
Court:Bombay High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

  1. By this appeal, State is challenging the judgment and order dated 31.10.2001, passed by the Special Judge, Thane, in Special Case No. 6 of 1992, thereby acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

  2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:-

    "In the year 1990, P.W.1 Bhanudas Dhotre had constituted one organization by name, "Navi Mumbai Nagrik Sangharsha Samiti". On 25.10.1990, he alongwith the Secretary of the organization, went to the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner, for registration of the organization. Respondent No. 1 was working as Assistant Charity Commissioner; whereas respondent No. 2 was working as Senior Clerk in the said office. He approached respondent No. 2 Smt. Sabale with a request to register his organization. Respondent No. 2 repeatedly called him to come her office i.e. on 21.12.1990, 31.12.1990 and 4.1.1991, raising various objections to the registration of the organization. According to P.W.1 Dhotre, he complied with all those objections. Despite that his work was not completed. Hence on 14.1.1991, he made enquiries with respondent No. 2 about the reason for the same. Thereupon respondent No. 2 told him that in their office no work is done unless money is paid and if P.W.1 Dhotre wanted the work to be done earlier, he would have to pay Rs. 200/- to herself and Rs. 300/- for respondent No. 1, thus totally an amount of Rs. 500/- in consideration of his work being done earlier. P.W.1 tried to meet respondent No. 1 also on the same date and thereafter on 18.1.1991. At that time respondent No. 1 also, in the presence of respondent No. 2, told P.W.1 Dhotre that he will have to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- as told by respondent No. 2, then only his work will be done earlier. Thus, P.W.1 Dhotre was convinced that unless he pays an amount as demanded by respondents, his work will not be done earlier. Hence he approached the office of A.C. B. and complained about the same to P.W.6 Khaire."

  3. P.W.6 Khaire arranged to lay a trap with the assistance of two panch witnesses. He gave necessary instructions to P.W.1 Dhotre and also sprinkled anthracene powder on the five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. It was directed to P.W.1 Dhotre that only if respondent No. 2 makes demand of Rs. 500/-, out of which Rs. 200/- to be paid to herself and Rs. 300/-...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL