The Special Court, District & Sessions Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Shri Dr. Abhay Avinash Joglekar acquitted Rain Forest Officer Ashok Makade of the offences under Section 7 read with 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution had alleged that the complainant was a contractor for constructing bridges in the forest area and in order to get his bill of Rs.11,50,000/- released, the accused is alleged to have demanded 30% of the bill amount. Being aggrieved by the said demand, he claims to have lodged a complaint with the ACB Department and the prosecution claimed to have verified the demand and had apprehended the accused while accepting the bribe amount.
Countering the allegations, the counsel for the defendant Advocate Prakash Naidu argued that the entire prosecution claim stood demolished, since, the genesis to formulate a charge against the accused is based upon the proof of demand of illegal gratification and the presumption of guilt as envisaged under the Act would trigger solely when the prosecution through cogent and incriminating evidences establishes that there was successful verification of demand and in pursuance thereof, the accused had accepted the tainted amount knowing well the same to be illegal gratification against the pending work. It was pointed out that the complainant had no locus to lodge a complaint or claim any bills as the complainant was not an authorised contractor of the forest department and the complainant had claimed himself to be a sub contractor, whereas sub-contractorship was alien to the Forest Work Contracts. Likewise, the version of demand alleged to have taken place inter se between the complainant and the accused has to be squarely in consonance with each other and which was prima facie missing and on the contrary, totally divergent versions fell from the mouth of the complainant and the panch as regards to the alleged demand made by the accused.
Gold Rate
Aug 27 ,2026 - Time 10.30Hrs
The versions of the complainant and the panch were not only divergent but also the place and manner in which the demand is alleged to have been made ran contrary to each other, as the complainant narrated that he and panch had been to the office of the accused and the demand was made by the accused in his office, whereas the panch narrated that the demand was verified through phone call which was made by the complainant to the accused from the office of the ACB. Likewise, it was pointed out that the cross-examination of the defence on every mitigating aspect, including the aspect of recordings and electronic evidences had demolished the fabric of the prosecution claim and no reliance could be placed upon the said recordings.
The prosecution was not even able to prove the ownership of the SIM cards over which the alleged calls were made. The contention of the prosecution further stood tarnished in view of the fact that the version of the prosecution witnesses as regards to the acceptance of the illegal gratification at Ganesh Sagar Restaurant, Dharampeth did not stand the scrutiny of cross-examination and there were glaring inconsistencies, contradictions, inter se between the versions of the star witnesses. The contradictions as were highlighted in the cross-examination went to the root, when the prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves with regards to whether an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- or Rs.3,20,000/- were carried by the complainant to be given to the accused. It was argued that the prosecution had miserably failed to trigger the aspect of guilt by raising any presumption of guilt against the accused and as such, the accused was entitled to be acquitted.
After hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidences, the Court proceeded to acquit the accused persons of the said charge.
Advocate Prakash Naidu, Mitesh Bais, Homesh Chauhan, Surabhi Naidu (Godbole) & Dhruv Sharma represented the accused.
