The Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Smt. M.V. Deshpande acquitted the accused Upendra Shriwaskar, Head Clerk at the Office of Deputy Director of Education of the charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution had claimed that the complainant had visited the office of Education Department since the school where he was employed was granted Government Aid and his salary was to increase accordingly.
Today’s Rate
Thu17 Oct. 2024
The complainant alleged that when he met the accused, the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him and as such, the complainant lodged a complaint with the ACB, Nagpur on 07.07.2020. The prosecution claimed that the investigation was triggered and they proceeded to verify the said demand by deputing a Panch Witness alongwith the complainant and by getting the conversation of the demand recorded in the digital voice recorder. Having so verified the demand, the prosecution claimed that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was tainted with Anthracin powder and the complainant and the panch proceeded to hand over the said amount to the accused and in pursuance of the trap the accused came to be arrested and chargesheet was filed.
Disputing the genesis of the prosecution’s claim Adv. Prakash Naidu appearing for the accused pointed out to the Court that there were glaring discrepancies in the manner of vital contradictions and omissions in the theory of the prosecution witnesses and no reliance can be placed upon the credibility of such witnesses. It was pointed out that an admission had been elicited from the mouth of the Panch and the complainant, whereby they had admitted that when the complainant claimed to have visited the accused for verification of demand, the Panch Witness was standing outside the office of the accused and had not entered the office premises, nor heard or witnessed the alleged demand of bribe from the accused.
It was also brought on record that on the alleged day, in view of the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, the capacity of the working staff was reduced to less than 50% and the accused was on leave and was not present in his office and the said fact demolished the entire claim of the prosecution and the contention of the prosecution that the demand of bribe was verified in the office of the accused stood falsified and the entire case of the prosecution collapsed on its inception itself, since the aspect of verification of demand stood falsified and in the absence of verification of demand, which is a sine qua non, the entire trap as alleged stood vitiated.
It was also argued that the aspect regarding the electronic evidence i.e., the voice files alleged to have been recorded in the Digital Voice Recorder and the memory card did not stand the scrutiny of the law as envisaged under the Evidence Act and the procedure as contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. In the absence of any sanctity with regards to the said recordings, no reliance could be placed upon the alleged recordings and the said recordings were of no aid to the prosecution and as such the said recordings were required to be discarded outright.
As regards the aspect of acceptance of money, it was pointed out that even during the said course, the Panch had failed to adhere to the instructions and was not present as a shadow witness but was at a distance of more than 100 feet in a crowded market place and he could not hear the conversation and that the panch gave a adverse admission by admitting that the complainant had kept the money in the bag which was hanging on the vehicle of the accused. As such, it was argued that in the absence of the mandated verification of demand and the rebuttal of presumption as had been exhaustively done by the accused through his cross-examination, the allegations as had been levelled by the prosecution by way of chargesheeting the accused and subjecting him to trial stood falsified.
Appreciating the contentions and the evidence on record, the Special Court proceeded to acquit the accused of the said charges. Advocate Prakash Naidu, Homesh Chauhan, Mitesh Bais, Surabhi Naidu (Godbole), Dhruv Sharma represented the accused.
