Nagpur: The Special Court for the Prevention of Corruption Act acquitted Dinesh Harinkhede of the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complainant had alleged that he was working on contractual basis with the Society which had been formulated by Zilla Parishad and that in accordance with Gharkul Awaas Yojana, he used to receive Rs.1,000/- per inspection of every individual house constructed under the said Yojana.
The prosecution had alleged that the contractual period of the complainant was over and that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was pending against his work and for which the complainant is alleged to have visited the accused requesting for extension of his contractual period and also for disbursement of his payment, upon which the accused is alleged to have demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant lodged a complaint with the ACB Office and the investigation was triggered and in the course of the trap proceedings, the aspect of verification of demand was successful and thereafter, the accused is alleged to have been caught red-handed while accepted the tainted currency amount from the complainant.
Gold Rate
02 Aug 2025
Advocate Prakash Naidu representing the accused argued that in the course of the cross-examination, the complainant had very specifically admitted that the society for which he was working was associated with the Zilla Parishad and that the bills as are alleged to have been submitted by him were sent by the said society to Zilla Parishad and from Zilla Parishad, the bill amount is credited directly to his bank account. It was also admitted by the complainant in cross examination that the Panchayat Samiti had absolutely no role to play in the disbursement of the said bills, nor did the accused have any role for the said disbursement or for getting the contract job extended.
Since the accused did not have any domain over the work of the complainant, nor could he facilitate the same, the aspect of demanding illegal gratification was ruled out. Furthermore, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the voice recordings in consonance with the Evidence Act and that absolutely no reliance could have been placed over the said voice recordings alleged to have been recorded in the course of the said trap proceedings. Likewise, despite instructions to the Panch Witness to be with the complainant like a shadow to observe and hear the talks between the complainant and the accused, the Panch had admitted in Cross-Examination that he was not present during the verification and the post-trap proceedings and further admitted that he was standing outside the office and did not observe or hear the said conversation as alleged.
As such, in view of the peculiar contradictory versions on material aspects, it was argued that no reliance could be placed on the versions of the star witnesses. Appreciating the evidence and the arguments advanced, the Special Court acquitted the accused B.D.O of the said charges.
Advocate Prakash Naidu, Mitesh Bais, Homesh Chauhan, Surabhi Naidu (Godbole), Dhruv Sharma represented the accused.
