The Spl. Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Ganesh Deshmukh acquitted Assistant Commissioner of Police, Baba Dongre of the offences under section 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution had claimed that the complainant had been prosecuted under section 107, 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the ACP, Panchpaoli and when he had appeared before the accused ACP Baba Dongre, the accused ACP Baba Dongre had threatened the complainant to arrest him and had demanded Rs. 60,000 from him. Being scared, the complainant had agreed to give the said amount and one person of Baba Dongre had accompanied the complainant and the complainant was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 60,000 in an account with the State Bank of India, whereupon the complainant claimed to have deposited the said amount.
He further claimed that he was summoned by one constable Thakur who is alleged to have demanded additional Rs. 25,000 for the accused Dongre. The complainant claimed that when he confronted ACP Dongre and clarified the aspect of demand, he had recorded the same in his mobile phone. The prosecution further claimed that the investigation officer had proceeded to carry out the verification proceedings and that it conspired in the said proceedings and the voice recordings recorded therein that the accused Dongre had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant and the same was recorded in the digital voice record. Subsequent thereto, the complainant has alleged that he had proceeded to hand over the tainted amount to the accused by keeping it in a file on the table as directed by the accused. The prosecution examined its star witnesses to prove the claim against the accused.
Gold Rate
3 May 2025
Adv Prakash Naidu appearing for the accused argued that the prosecution cannot be substantiated and no presumption as envisaged can be drawn against the accused, since not only was the complainant’s version before the court contrary to his own versions as had been spelled out in the compliant, panchnama and statement before the police but it was also contradictory in consonance with the version of the panch witness on a graver count and as such the presumption as envisaged under the act could by no stretch of imagination be drawn up against the accused.
Adv Naidu further argued that the law is settled on the core aspects and in the event aspect of verification of demand was not satisfied from all four corners, no presumption could be drawn against the accused. Likewise, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the authenticity and veracity of the alleged voice recordings by virtue of which the prosecution claimed to have verified the aspect of demand and the acceptance by the accused. So also, the prosecution had failed to demonstrate as to why the panch witness did not accompany the complainant during the course of verification proceedings and acceptance aspects and preferred to stay outside the police station.
The prosecution even did not give a plausible explanation as to why the investigating officer did not record the statements of one lady advocate and other persons who are alleged to have been present during the alleged demand made by the accused. Adv Naidu argued that the vital discrepancies as had been elaborated in the cross-examination of the witnesses coupled with the major lacunas in the investigation, whereby the prosecution could not connect the chain of circumstances so as to fasten the guilt against the accused, the accused could not be subjected to conviction and since the verification of the alleged demand which was a sine qua non for a valid proof of demand, no reliance could be placed upon the prosecution version and in the absence of a conclusive and concrete theory in consonance of all the witnesses, no conclusion could be arrived to fasten the culpability of demand of bribe upon the accused as the entire prosecution case as regards to the analogy and theory of demand was thwarted and washed away from the hilt.
Appreciating the evidences and the arguments, the court proceeded to acquit the accused of the said charges. Adv. Prakash Naidu appeared for the accused.
