The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench posthumously acquitted an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), who had been accused of soliciting bribes to expedite legal proceedings [Nasibkhan Gulabkhan Pathan v State of Maharashtra].The Court also acquitted a law clerk implicated in the 22-year-old bribery case.Justice Abhay S Waghwase said there lack of credible evidence in the case.“The prosecution case is not free from doubt,” the Court said, while underscoring the significance of fair trial..The case arose in 2002 when the complainant, seeking a favorable outcome in a criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Kallam, alleged that the APP in the case, Nasibkhan Gulabkhan Pathan, had demanded a bribe of ₹1,000. The complainant claimed that the APP insisted on the payment to ensure the case was presented properly in court. Following the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) set up a trap, leading to the arrest of both Pathan and his law clerk, Balasaheb Gunvantrao Yadav.During the trial, which took place before special judge’s court in Osmanabad, both accused were convicted on September 29, 2005, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, Pathan passed away before the appeal could be heard..The trial court’s conviction was primarily based on the testimony of the complainant and a shadow witness who claimed that he had seen the bribe demand. However, the complainant later retracted his statement and claimed that the allegations were fabricated and that he had been coerced into making the complaint. This retraction cast significant doubt on the prosecution’s case. Despite this, the trial court upheld the conviction prompting Pathan's heirs and Yadav to file appeals before the Bombay High Court..They argued that the case against the accused lacked credible evidence. The defense pointed out that the complainant’s retraction rendered his testimony unreliable and that his account was inconsistent. They also questioned the credibility of the shadow witness, who was not present when the bribe was allegedly demanded and whose testimony was contradictory. Additionally, the defense argued that the prosecution's sanction was invalid as the authority that issued it was not responsible for the case at the time..The Court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It observed that the complainant’s retraction combined with the dubious testimony of the shadow witness created significant doubt about the allegations. "The trial court has, on the evidence of only PW2 shadow pancha and some answers given by complainant while under cross by prosecutor, drawn inference that case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Apparently, defence taken and evidence of defence witnesses has not been taken into account while accepting the prosecution version. Therefore, there is reason to interfere in the findings recorded by trial judge," the High Court said..The Court observed that the evidence of the shadow pancha was not sufficient to sustain a conviction, especially when the primary witness had turned hostile. The judge also criticized the prosecution’s handling of the case, observing that the quality of evidence presented by the prosecution was lacking and the sanction was granted in 'mechanical' manner raising serious questions about its validity.As a result, the court quashed the convictions of both Pathan and Yadav under the Prevention of Corruption Act..Advocates Mayur Salunke and VD Salunke appeared for Nasibkhan Gulabkhan Pathan's heirsAdvocate SS Panale appeared for the law clerk, Balasaheb Gunvantrao Yadav. Additional Public Prosecutor Ashlesha S Deshmukh appeared for the State. .[Read Order]
The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench posthumously acquitted an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), who had been accused of soliciting bribes to expedite legal proceedings [Nasibkhan Gulabkhan Pathan v State of Maharashtra].The Court also acquitted a law clerk implicated in the 22-year-old bribery case.Justice Abhay S Waghwase said there lack of credible evidence in the case.“The prosecution case is not free from doubt,” the Court said, while underscoring the significance of fair trial..The case arose in 2002 when the complainant, seeking a favorable outcome in a criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Kallam, alleged that the APP in the case, Nasibkhan Gulabkhan Pathan, had demanded a bribe of ₹1,000. The complainant claimed that the APP insisted on the payment to ensure the case was presented properly in court. Following the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) set up a trap, leading to the arrest of both Pathan and his law clerk, Balasaheb Gunvantrao Yadav.During the trial, which took place before special judge’s court in Osmanabad, both accused were convicted on September 29, 2005, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, Pathan passed away before the appeal could be heard..The trial court’s conviction was primarily based on the testimony of the complainant and a shadow witness who claimed that he had seen the bribe demand. However, the complainant later retracted his statement and claimed that the allegations were fabricated and that he had been coerced into making the complaint. This retraction cast significant doubt on the prosecution’s case. Despite this, the trial court upheld the conviction prompting Pathan's heirs and Yadav to file appeals before the Bombay High Court..They argued that the case against the accused lacked credible evidence. The defense pointed out that the complainant’s retraction rendered his testimony unreliable and that his account was inconsistent. They also questioned the credibility of the shadow witness, who was not present when the bribe was allegedly demanded and whose testimony was contradictory. Additionally, the defense argued that the prosecution's sanction was invalid as the authority that issued it was not responsible for the case at the time..The Court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It observed that the complainant’s retraction combined with the dubious testimony of the shadow witness created significant doubt about the allegations. "The trial court has, on the evidence of only PW2 shadow pancha and some answers given by complainant while under cross by prosecutor, drawn inference that case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Apparently, defence taken and evidence of defence witnesses has not been taken into account while accepting the prosecution version. Therefore, there is reason to interfere in the findings recorded by trial judge," the High Court said..The Court observed that the evidence of the shadow pancha was not sufficient to sustain a conviction, especially when the primary witness had turned hostile. The judge also criticized the prosecution’s handling of the case, observing that the quality of evidence presented by the prosecution was lacking and the sanction was granted in 'mechanical' manner raising serious questions about its validity.As a result, the court quashed the convictions of both Pathan and Yadav under the Prevention of Corruption Act..Advocates Mayur Salunke and VD Salunke appeared for Nasibkhan Gulabkhan Pathan's heirsAdvocate SS Panale appeared for the law clerk, Balasaheb Gunvantrao Yadav. Additional Public Prosecutor Ashlesha S Deshmukh appeared for the State. .[Read Order]
