Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2003. Case: The State of Maharashtra Vs Kundlik Sugandhrao Aravade. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.J. Salgare, APP and For Respondents: Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate |
| Judges | S.S. Shinde, J. |
| Issue | Criminal Law |
| Judgement Date | May 09, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S.S. Shinde, J., (Aurangabad Bench)
-
Heard the learned A.P.P. appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
-
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 3rd July, 2003 passed by the Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 3 of 1996.
-
The prosecution case, in brief, are as under:-
(A) On 20th July, 1995, the tempo trax bearing No. MH-16/9452 owned and driven by the complainant (PW-1) Arvind Dagadu Sontakke, resident of village Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar met with an accident near Mehekari Phata, resulting into damage to said vehicle. In order to claim insurance from the Insurance Company, the complainant required the certified copies of the first information report and the spot panchanama. Therefore, he approached ASI Dange, Incharge of Kaudgaon Police Outpost and who directed him to meet Police Constable Bhalerao and Police Constable Aravade i.e. the present accused, who were attached to the said Police Outpost and had drawn the spot panchanama. Both these Police Constables asked the complainant to come after 8 days to collect the copies, but when complainant approached them after 8 days, thereafter they asked him to come again after two days, as the signatures of superior officer were yet to be obtained on the copies.
(B) Accordingly, the complainant again came to meet them after two days, however, at that time, they demanded the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- for delivering the copies. They further told him to pay this amount to one Shri Gunjal, Builder and collect the copies and driving license from Shri Gunjal only. The request on the part of the complainant to reduce the bribe amount was not adhered to. Hence, on 21st August, 1995, the complainant approached P.I. Shri D.R. Nimkar (PW-4) of Anti Corruption Bureau, who recorded his complaint and directed to remain present on the next day for laying the trap.
(C) On the next day, however, it was found that both Police Constables Bhalerao and the present accused were on Bandobast at Nagar Taluka Police Station and hence, P.I. Nimkar sent complainant and one of the panch i.e. Prabhakar Darade to Nagar Taluka Police Station for verification of demand. There complainant could meet accused alone, who on repeated request from complainant in presence of panch Darade reduced the bribe amount to Rs. 500/- and reiterated his instructions to pay the bribe amount to Gunjal on the next day and collect the papers.
(D) Accordingly, on the next day, in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau in presence of complainant and panch witnesses Prabhakar Darade and Namdeo Bhingardive preparations for trap were made, use of ultra violet lamp and anthracene powder was demonstrated. The anthracene powder was smeared on currency notes of Rs. 500/- in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial