Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2002. Case: The State of Maharashtra Vs Devidas Ramchandra Wagh. Bombay High Court
|Case Number:||Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2002|
|Party Name:||The State of Maharashtra Vs Devidas Ramchandra Wagh|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: S.J. Salgare, A.P.P|
|Judges:||S.S. Shinde, J.|
|Issue:||Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1) (d)(i), 13(2), 7|
|Judgement Date:||May 08, 2017|
|Court:||Bombay High Court|
S.S. Shinde, J.
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2002, passed by Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 12 of 1997, thereby acquitting Respondent -Devidas Ramchandra Wagh, from the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1) (d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Brief facts leading for filing present Appeal as per the prosecution case are as under:
Original complainant Pradeep Baburao Bhamre, resident of Jamner was desirous to start the business of plastic moulding and accordingly for the said purpose, he had taken loan from the financial institution. He wanted 'no objection certificate' from the Pollution Control Board so as to start the business of plastic moulding under the scheme sponsored by the Government of India. Accordingly, in order to get no objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board, complainant approached the office of the Pollution Control Board with all the required papers. He requested the concerned authority to issue said certificate forthwith so as to avoid further loss of time. It is the case of the prosecution that when the complainant approached the concerned authority, the accused, who is employee in the said office, demanded Rs. 5,000/- towards bribe. Complainant was dissatisfied with such demand and therefore on 17th February, 1997, he had been to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau and there he lodged the report. On the basis of said report, trap was arranged by the Officers of Anti Corruption Bureau. Two independent panchas were summoned. Thereafter necessary preparation for laying the tray was done. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, Respondent herein accepted the amount from the complainant and to that effect necessary panchnama was drawn. As per the prosecution case, trap was successful, in as much as the Respondent accepted the amount from the complainant and thereafter trap was laid and accused was found accepting the amount. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Special Court.
After filing charge-sheet, charge was framed and prosecution laid evidence. Complainant Pradeep Bhamre was examined as PW-2. During his examination-in-chief, he stated the manner in which he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, thereafter necessary preparation was made to lay the trap and thereafter as demanded by the accused, the amount was given to...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL