Nagpur: The Special Court, C.B.I. S.S. Deshpande acquitted Mohd. Muzammil of charges under section 7, 13 (1) (d) R/w 13 (2) of Prevention of corruption act.
The prosecution had in the chargesheet and course of trial, very strongly contended that the accused had demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant Ritesh Suranaand in the course of evidence it was alleged that the complainant had supplied ballast worth Rs. 5.5 crore to the Railway and the accused Mohd. Muzammil i.e. Office Superintendent, Accounts Section, Central Railway had demanded Rs. Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant, since he had passed his bills and also threatened that the pending bills of the complainant would not be processed in the future and asked the complainant to bring Rs. 1,00,000/- in the evening at Maharajbag Club Nagpur.
In the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses, the defence brought on record glairing inconsistencies, omissions, contradictions and improvements and demonstrated before the Court that none of the witnesses projected by the prosecution were trustworthy and that no reliance could be placed upon them. It was also very transparently brought on record through the mouth of the panch witness, trap laying officer and investigating officer that no demand was ever made by the accused during the course of verification, pre-trap and post trap panchnamas. It was also brought on record, that the bills of the complainant never used to come to the table of the accused for processing and that the accused had absolutely no access in anyway, whatsoever, with the bills of the complainant and the accused could not even facilitate its clearance, as the bills were strictly subject to the other officers and departments. It was also brought on record that the accused never invited or asked the complainant to come to Maharajbag club and the accused never made demand of Rs. Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Adv. Prakash Naidu appearing on behalf of accused argued that, even assuming, the tainted notes of Rs. 1,00,000/- were recovered from the accused, that itself was not sufficient to fasten the guilt upon the accused by raising “Presumption” as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. It was further argued that, it was duty incumbent upon the prosecution to have produced the best pieces of evidences i.e. cctvcamera recordings, entry receipt of the club, statements of waiters of club and the bills of the club to demonstrate that, infact, the investigating team and the accused had infact visited Maharajbag Club. The CDR of the mobile phone of complainant was also not upto the mark. As such, it was argued that the “Presumption” of guilt as contemplated under the Act could be resorted to, only if the initial demand was proved. However, in the present case since the initial demand itself was not proved, the “Presumption” could not be taken against the accused.
Taking into consideration, the evidences and arguments advanced, the Special Court CBI, Shri. S.S. Deshpande proceeded to acquit the accused of the said charges. Advocate Prakash Naidu, PankajThakre, HomeshChavhan, Rahul Rathe, SurabhiGodbole and MiteshBais appeared for the accused. Advocate Sunil Verma and VikramjeetYadav represented the CBI.