The State Of Maharashtra v. Ravindra S/O. Arjunrao Tandle And ANR

918-als231.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE STATE NO. 231 OF 2019 The State of Maharashtra Applicant

Versus

Ravindra s/o Arjunrao Tandale & another Respondents Mr. R. D. Sanap, APP for the Applicant Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for Respondents CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

DATE : 01st NOVEMBER, 2023.

P.C. :

Heard rival submissions.

The applicant-State, through Dharmabad Police Station, is seeking leave to challenge the acquittal of present respondents who are original accused for the charge under Section 7 read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in ACB Case No.5 of 2015, recorded under judgment and order dated 23.07.2019.

918-als231.19 The impugned judgment itself indicates that though the complainant has supported the prosecution in the Chiefexamination, but in the cross-examination he has given certain vital admissions which have shattered the case of the prosecution. According to him, the amount, which was to be given to the accused, was not a bribe amount but it was an amount for carrying out the repairs to be paid to one Contractor Mr. Chavan. Further, from the evidence of the sanctioning authority, it appears that the sanction was accorded to prosecute respondent no.1 only because there was damage to the MSEB property. Further, there is no sanction on record to prosecute respondent no.2.

Considering all these aspects, it appears that there is no perversity in the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Biloli and, therefore the application, seeking leave to challenge the impugned judgment, stands rejected. SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE JUDGE adb