DEPUTY SUPRINDENDENT OF POLICE Vs. VITHOBA GANPATI PIDURKAR
LAWS(BOM)-2010-6-21
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on
June 23,2010
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, CHANDRAPUR
Appellant
VERSUS
VITHOBA S/O. GANPATI PIDURKAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GIRJA PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS. VS. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]RAM KRISHAN ANOTHER GIAN CHAND VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
TARSEM LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
M NARSINGA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PUNJABRAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN M SESHADRI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
T SHANKAR PRASAD VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
V RADHAKRISHNA REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
T SUBRAMANIAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
N NAVEEN KUMAR VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
C M GIRISH BABU VS. CBI COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A P VS. M RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MOHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DNYANESHWAR LAXMAN RAO WANKHEDE [REFERRED TO]
STATE CBI HYDERABAD VS. G PREM RAJ [REFERRED TO]
BANARSI DASS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
GUMAN AHMAD ALIAS MANNA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASTRA VS. NAYANKUMAR SHIVAPPA WAGHMARE [REFERRED TO]
ATUL NAIK VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THIS is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State.
(2.)THE respondent was charged for offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The complainant - PW-1 - Vilas Tadas gave an oral report on 14th May, 1999 regarding demand of bribe by the respondent.
Heard learned APP Mr. Doifode for the appellant and learned Adv. Mr. Mohit Khajanchi for the respondent.
(3.)THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur, completed all formalities prior to raid, and conducted the raid.
According to prosecution:-
[a] The accused person demanded the amount of bribe from the complainant in presence of PW-2 - Panch Witness - Raghunath Narayan Rathod. [b] Amount was paid by the complainant in presence of PW-2 - Raghunath Rathod to the accused. [c] When the raid was conducted, the accused expressed that he had accepted the money, but he was being involved. [d] The second Panchanama as to process of raid was prepared. The expression of the accused noted in foregoing point is recorded in second Panchanama. [e] After completing the formalities and lodging First Information Report, further investigation was completed and charge- sheet was filed.
(2.)THE respondent was charged for offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The complainant - PW-1 - Vilas Tadas gave an oral report on 14th May, 1999 regarding demand of bribe by the respondent.
Heard learned APP Mr. Doifode for the appellant and learned Adv. Mr. Mohit Khajanchi for the respondent.
(3.)THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur, completed all formalities prior to raid, and conducted the raid.
According to prosecution:-
[a] The accused person demanded the amount of bribe from the complainant in presence of PW-2 - Panch Witness - Raghunath Narayan Rathod. [b] Amount was paid by the complainant in presence of PW-2 - Raghunath Rathod to the accused. [c] When the raid was conducted, the accused expressed that he had accepted the money, but he was being involved. [d] The second Panchanama as to process of raid was prepared. The expression of the accused noted in foregoing point is recorded in second Panchanama. [e] After completing the formalities and lodging First Information Report, further investigation was completed and charge- sheet was filed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.