Nagpur: The Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act has acquitted a Deputy Superintendent of Land Records in a ₹10,000 alleged bribery case, citing serious contradictions and shortcomings in the prosecution’s evidence.
District and Sessions Judge A.L. Tikle pronounced the order, acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
₹10,000 alleged demand for urgent plot measurement
According to the prosecution case, the complainant had purchased a plot and approached the office of the accused to have it measured. The accused was alleged to have demanded ₹10,000 for arranging the measurement on an urgent basis.
Gold Rate
Aug 27 ,2026 - Time 10.30Hrs
The complainant subsequently approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), following which the prosecution claimed that the alleged demand was verified and a trap was laid.
During the trap, the accused’s subordinate, Bapuji Wargantiwar, was allegedly caught accepting the money on behalf of the accused.
Defence points to contradictions
Appearing for the accused, Advocate Prakash Naidu argued that the prosecution’s version regarding verification of the alleged demand was inconsistent.
According to the defence, the complainant claimed that the demand had been verified at the accused’s office. However, during cross-examination, the panch witness stated that the verification had taken place over a mobile phone from the ACB office.
The defence argued that the witnesses also gave contradictory accounts about the conversation allegedly held between the complainant and the accused during the verification process, undermining the evidentiary value of the alleged demand verification.
Complainant allegedly offered money
The defence further relied on the complainant’s cross-examination, arguing that it indicated that the accused had not made any demand and that it was instead the complainant who had offered to provide gratification.
The prosecution had relied primarily on the statements of the complainant and panch witness, along with the panchnamas prepared during the trap proceedings.
Dispute over voice recording
Another significant issue concerned an alleged Digital Voice Recorder used during the trap.
The complainant and investigating officer denied that a voice recorder had been used. However, the panch witness admitted during cross-examination that a Digital Voice Recorder had in fact been used.
The defence argued that the prosecution had deliberately withheld the voice recordings from the chargesheet because the alleged conversation did not support its case.
Court finds prosecution evidence unreliable
The Court found that the alleged demand had not been proved and that contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the complainant, panch witness and investigating officer further weakened the prosecution’s case.
The Court also noted that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was unreliable and lacked authenticity, and therefore could not be relied upon to establish guilt.
The defence also challenged the significance of the handwash evidence, with the press note stating that the CFSL report concerning the handwash of the accused and complainant lost its evidentiary value following the cross-examination.
Witnesses also admitted that the ₹10,000 was towards the challan deposit for urgent measurement, according to the press note.
After considering the evidence and arguments, the Special Court acquitted the accused of the charges.
Advocates Prakash Naidu, Mitesh Bais, Homesh Chauhan, Surabhi Naidu (Godbole) and Dhruv Sharma represented the accused.
