Nagpur: The Special Court presided by Judge Atul Vasant Dhuldhule acquitted Balkrushna Kulkarni, Deputy Senior Manager, Koradi Thermal Power Station (KTPS) of the offences under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The complainant had alleged that his vehicles were plying as taxis with MAHAGENCO in Koradi and that the bills submitted by him used to be signed by the officers and processed for auditing and payments were made on monthly basis. He contended that his pending four bills were submitted and only three bills were approved and the accused Balkrushna did not sign the bill and demanded illegal gratification for clearing the said bill.
Gold Rate
Mar 2nd, 2026 - Time 11.45Hrs
Being aggrieved, he claimed to have lodged the complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur and the prosecution claimed that they verified the demand and the trap was successful after the accused accepted the tainted bribe amount and chargesheet came to be filed.
Defending the accused, Advocate Prakash Naidu argued that in order to fasten the guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to demonstrate the culpability of the accused by clinching, ocular and forensic evidences and only thereafter, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would trigger and in the absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification, recovery of money from the accused would be of no aid to the prosecution.
Demand of money to perform an official act by a public servant in his personal capacity or to facilitate the execution of the said Act in the capacity of a public servant was a sine qua non to rope in the accused in a crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was pointed out that there were glaring omissions and improvements in the version of the complainant.
In the cross-examination, admissions adverse to the case of the prosecution had been brought on record, whereby the complainant admitted that the accused had prior to the lodging of complaint signed his bill and forwarded the same to his Senior Manager and no work was pending with the accused. So also, the sanctioning officer and the tap laying officer were under mandated obligation to have verified from the facts and the official records of the accused to verify as to whether any work was pending with the accused, which entailed the accused to have demanded illegal gratification and had the investigating machinery and the sanctioning officer applied their mind, it would have concluded that there was no occasion or reason for the accused to have demanded money.
It was also brought on record that the panch witness was specifically instructed to accompany the complainant as a shadow and to observe and hear the conversations during the course of verification panchnama and thereafter. However, despite these specific instructions, the panch did not go inside the officer chamber of the accused and no reason was assigned for not doing so except for the contradictory versions inter se between the complainant and the panch.
The cross examination had further elicited that there were glaring contradictions in the versions of the complainant and the panch as regards to the wordings and the narration of conversation inter se between the complainant and the accused, which proceeded to demolish the claim of the prosecution as there were clinching material inconsistencies and grave contradictions as regards to the aspect of demand and money and hence no reliance could be placed upon such inconsistent testimonies.
So also, there were vital contradictions in the entire narration of events and the procedural happenings as regards to the versions what fell from the mouth of the complainant and the panch witness. The veracity of electronic evidences was cast under serious doubts as there were vital discrepancies in the narration, use, depiction and what was sent to the Forensic and what was produced before the Court as regards to the electronic gadgets and in the absence of cogent proof as regards to sustain the authenticity of the electronic gadgets, the alleged voice files recorded therein had lost its evidentiary sanctity and no reliance could have been placed upon the said electronic evidences in any way whatsoever.
The prosecution had even failed to prove that the sanctioning officer had in fact an opportunity to apply his mind and accord sanction, nor was there any material on record to demonstrate as to on what premises the Sanctioning Officer had applied his mind. So also, the transcripts of the alleged conversations of the alleged voice filed were inadmissible and could not have been relied upon.
Advocate Naidu further argued that, since the prosecution had failed to stand on its own legs to prove and trigger the presumption as envisaged under the Act, the accused was not supposed to rebut the allegations and despite this, the accused had successfully rebutted the allegations based upon the contradictory versions of the prosecution’s evidences in its ocular and evidentiary form and as such, the accused was innocent and had been roped in a false case.
Appreciating the cross-examination and the arguments, the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur acquitted the accused of the said charges.
Advocate Prakash Naidu, Mitesh Bais, Homesh Chauhan, Surabhi Naidu (Godbole), Dhruv Sharma represented the accused.
