w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The State of Maharashtra v/s Annasaheb Mahadev Bhandare


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

Company & Directors' Information:- K MAHADEV AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U20220MH1948PTC006782

    Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2000

    Decided On, 27 July 2015

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY M. THIPSAY

    For the Petitioner: Deepak Thakre, APP. For the Respondent: Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The respondent was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C.Act'). After holding a trial, the learned Special Judge, Kolhapur, by his judgment and order dated 29th September 1999 held the respondent not guilty and acquitted him. The State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, and has therefore, after obtaining the leave of this court, filed the present appeal challenging the same.

2. I have heard Mr.Deepak Thakre, the learned APP for the State. I have heard Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their assistance, I have gone through the evidence adduced during the trial and the impugned judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the accused.'

4. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial court, in brief, may be stated thus:

One Gopinath Sankpal and his wife were accused in a case in respect of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. The mother of the said Gopinath – Smt.Laxmibai – had committed suicide and Gopinath and his wife were alleged to have abetted the commission of suicide by Smt.Laxmibai. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Gopinath and and his wife in respect of the aforesaid offence in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ichalkaranji. The date for appearance before the Magistrate, was given as 22nd July 1993, on which date, the said Gopinath (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') appeared before the Magistrate and furnished bail bonds. However, the wife of complainant was unable to remain present before the Magistrate on that date, and had sought exemption from personal appearance for the day, which was granted. The next date before the Magistrate was 2nd September 1993. The complainant, apparently, had engaged two advocates and one of the advocates wanted him to get the copies of the police papers and accompanying documents before 2nd September 1993. The complainant, therefore, went to the Police station and asked for the copies of the chargesheet, but was informed that copies were already sent to the court of the Magistrate. On 1st September 1993 i.e. the day prior to the date on which the matter was fixed before the Magistrate, the complainant went to the Magistrate's court. The accused was working there as a Clerk. He was looking after the criminal table, and apparently, was responsible for getting the copies of the chargesheet from the police and for supplying the same to the accused persons. The complainant demanded the copies of the police papers from the accused. The accused told him that he would have to give Rs.65/- therefor. The accused, allegedly, further said, that unless this amount was paid, he would not deliver the copies of the police papers to him. The complainant said that he would pay the amount on the next date, but actually went to the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Kolhapur, and lodged a complaint against the accused. The complaint was recorded. A trap was arranged on 2nd September 1993 and the panchas were called. An amount of Rs.65/- was obtained from the complainant. Anthracene powder was applied to the same. The properties of anthracene powder were explained to the complainant and the panchas. The numbers of the currency notes were noted in the panchnama. The police party and the panchas then left for the court of Magistrate, and reached there at about 1.40 p.m. The case, in which the complainant and his wife were accused, was called out before the Magistrate and was adjourned. Thereafter, the complainant went to the accused and emanded the copy of the police papers. The accused asked him whether the complainant had brought the amount and the complainant told him that he had brought the amount of Rs.65/-. The accused, then, told the complainant that he needed Rs.69/-. The complainant thereupon told that he had only an amount of Rs.65/- with him, and that, he would pay the amount of Rs.4/- on the next date. Thereafter, the complainant handed over Rs.65/- to the accused, and the accused accepted it. After the pre-decided signal was given, the accused was apprehended.

5. The prosecution examined seven witnesses during the trial. The first witness is the complainant himself. The second witness Krishnaji Natekar is a panch, who had accompanied the complainant, as per the trap laid. The third witness – Sanjay Tukaram Bote and the fourth witness – Krishant Bhiku Saloke – are the employees working in the court of Magistrate at the material time. They have been examined only to show that the accused was concerned with the work of getting the police papers / chargesheets of various cases coming to the Magistrate for supplying to the accused persons in those cases. The fifth witness Malgonda Patil is a Head Constable attached to Hupri Police Station, who had filed the chargesheet in the case against the complainant and his wife. The sixth witness Chhagansing Bais, District Judge, is the Sanctioning Authority. He had granted sanction to prosecute against the accused, as required under Section 19 of the P.C.Act. The seventh witness – Sadashiv Chavan – is the Investigating Officer, who had laid the trap.

6. The defence of the accused, as taken by him before the trial court by filing a written statement, was that, that the complainant had approached him by saying that he wanted copies of the police report and chargesheet, and that, money was handed over by the complainant to the accused for passing it on to the clerk of his advocate for getting the copy of the chargesheet xeroxed. According to the accused, since the complainant had said that it consisted of 65 pages, the amount that would be required for xeroxing the same, was estimated to be Rs.65/-, and it is thus that the figure was arrived at. It is also the case of the accused that when the complainant actually came for getting the copies on the next day, it was found that it consisted of 69 pages, and therefore, the accused had demanded four rupees more.

7. The learned Judge found the defence of the accused plausible.

8. Indeed, there are a number of suspicious features in the prosecution case.

9. In the first place, the complainant, being an accused in the case, was entitled to get a copy of the chargesheet free of charge and as a matter of right. It was the responsibility of the Magistrate to see that the copy was supplied. It would be difficult to imagine that the complainant, who had engaged two advocates to defend him, would think of paying any bribe for obtaining the copy of the chargesheet, when he was anyway going to get it. This is particularly so, because, according to the complainant, he had gone to the accused for demanding the copy, just a day prior to the date, on which he had to appear before the Magistrate. The accused could very well have got the copies on the next date. The case of the complainant was that, his advocate wanted the copy urgently on the previous date itself, but, the advocate has not been examined as a witness to show that why he could not wait for another day. Moreover, the copies were actually obtained only on the next day, i.e., on 2nd September 1993, when the matter was on the board of the Magistrate and when the complainant was anyway required to remain present before the Magistrate.

10. Considering that the complainant had engaged two advocates, it was easy for him to bring the matter of the demand of bribe by the accused to the notice of the advocate, but the complainant did not do so.

11. The case in which the complainant was an accused was called out on 2nd September 1993, before the complainant paid the money to the accused. Why the complainant, at that time, did not request to the Magistrate for a copy, is not clear.

12. It also appears that after receiving the amount of Rs.65/-, the accused demanded four more rupees. There is substance in the contention advanced by Mr.Mundargi, the learned counsel for the accused, that the very demand of such odd figure indicates that the money that was being demanded, was towards the copying charges.

13. The learned Special Judge in his judgment considered all the aspects of the matter carefully. Among other things, he also noted that the complainant apparently had not disclosed the fact of his having approached the ACB when the matter appeared before the Magistrate on 2nd September 1993.

14. The learned Special Judge also noted that on 2nd September 1993 the matter had been called out before the Magistrate and effective work was done. It appears that a surety was offered for the wife of the complainant and the bail bonds were executed. The tainted amount was allegedly paid by the complainant to the accused at about 5.55 p.m., i.e., after the court hours.

15. Considering all the aspects of the matter, the learned Special Judge doubted whether the complainant genuinely wanted copies of the chargesheet – which he was anyway to get, or whether he just wanted to trap the accused, for reasons known to him.

16. In my opinion, the appreciation of evidence, as done by the learned Special Judge, and the conclusion arrived at by him, does not suffer from any infirmity, error or illegality.

17. There is one more aspect of the matter, which is of considerable importance. In this case, the trap was laid and the raid was effected in the court premises itself. It was arranged during the working hours of court. No permission appears to have been obtained from the High court or the Judge incharge of the Judicial Administration of the District, before laying such a trap. If the investigating agencies are permitted to lay traps in the court premises, on working days and during the working hours, it would not be conducive to the administration of justice. The staff attached to a Judge discharges duties under the instructions of the Presiding Officer. If the Police Offi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

cers, whose subordination to the Judicial Magistrate is evident from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and who frequently visit the courts for obtaining remand or as witnesses, are allowed to raid the court premises without permission of the Presiding Officer of the court or the Principal District Judge, or the High court, there is every possibility of a serious threat to the administration of justice and the independence of judiciary, being posed. A similar view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in Surendra Sahai and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1997 Cri.L.J.1670. In my opinion, therefore, it was absolutely improper on the part of the investigating agency to have laid a trap without seeking the previous permission of the Judge incharge of the Judicial Administration of the District or the High court and without seeking permission to lay such a trap. Incidentally, it may be observed that, the trap was laid without verification of the demand. 18. The order of the acquittal of the accused, as passed by the Special Judge, is proper and legal. 19. The Appeal is dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-08-2020 Asha Krishnaji Kulkarni Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary Social Justice & Special Assistance Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-08-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Now Known As Aditiya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Maharashtra & Another Versus Narendra Pundlik Ramteke National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-08-2020 Baliram Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Section Officer Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-07-2020 Bank of Baroda, Through Its Manager, Maharashtra Versus Balaprasad Bansilal Biyani National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 Yogesh Suresh Chaudhari Versus M/S. Auto Wheels, Kubota Tractor Sales Services & Spares, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Ashok Laxman Mane & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Mampi Dhar (Gosh) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 Swapnil Versus State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Gangapur In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Atmaram Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-07-2020 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Registered under Society's Registration Act, 1860, Through its founder- President M.N. Navale & Another Versus Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Gorakh Ramdas Kandge & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Vikas & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Maharashtra State Transport Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Mohan Shamrao Shinde Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-07-2020 Mhaibub D. Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2020 Makrand Chandrakant Bapardekar Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2020 Premier Employees & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-07-2020 Imran Mohd. Salar Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-07-2020 Devanand Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-07-2020 Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 Nagpur Agriculture Equipment Engineers Private Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Premnath National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 Arnab Ranjan Goswami Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Piya Mahantaney & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-05-2020 Mahadev Prasad @ Shiv Ram Goojar & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Sajan V/S State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Yogesh Kalyanrao Ghadage And Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sanjay Vitthalrao Jadhav & Others V/S The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad