Nagpur: Special Judge T S Akali, designated under Prevention of Corruption Act, on Friday acquitted Govind Barapatre, a Police Constable at Panchpaoli Police Station of bribery charges.
According to the prosecution, the complainant had formed Mahila Bachat Gat and she was charging Rs 1600 as membership fee to one Archana Bhute and had assured other women members of providing loans against their membership fee. However after six months, office of the said Bachat Gat was closed and members lodged complaint with Panchpaoli police against the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant went to Panchpaoli Police Station where the accused constable Govind Barapatre informed her that offence against her is yet to be registered and if she wants that no offence should be registered against her, then she has to pay illegal gratification of Rs.50,000 to him otherwise he shall take complainant in custody.
Aggrieved by the conduct of accused, complainant lodged report with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. The prosecution had alleged that in the negotiations between complainant and accused which was duly recorded, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs 30,000. Thereafter when complainant was directed to produce Rs 30,000, she could produce only Rs 5,000 and trap was laid. However the trap failed as the accused did not accept the amount.
The accused denied entire allegations of prosecution. Adv Prakash Naidu, on behalf of accused police constable, argued that the alleged conversation between accused and complainant in presence of witnesses and also CD and memory card containing the alleged conversation cannot be held to be substantial evidence in view of bar under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. It was also pointed out that the there are contradictory versions in respect of place of occurrence of alleged offence, sequence of events and narration of facts and there is no consistency in the evidence of complainant and witness No.1 and the investigating officer. It was also brought on record in the cross examination that witness No.2 did not go to the spot and also that she did not hear conversation in respect of alleged demand by the accused. The time of recording statements by DySP Reddywar was also under grave doubt on account of conflicting dates stated by the DySP and the witness. It was also brought on record by the defense counsel that though the alleged trap was laid on 14-12-2011 the crime was not registered till 30-12-2011. No explanation was assigned for the said delay. The accused was also not arrested immediately after the alleged trap. It was further argued that the sanctioning authority ought to have done consistent scrutiny of the record, which was not done.
After recording evidence and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, T S Akali, Special Judge acquitted the accused.
Prakash Naidu, Advocate, assisted by Pankaj Thakre and Homesh Chauhan, Advocates represented the accused. The prosecution was represented by Adv G.N.Dubey.