2013 (8) TMI 1201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cerning respondent No. 1 - then Sub-Divisional Officer posed at Maval Sub-Division, Pune. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as under:- "Applicant desired to get converted the agricultural property in non-agricultural purpose for Petrol Pump, sanctioned in the name of his wife. An application was moved to the office of respondent No. 1 on 9.9.2010. The applicant was pursuing his matter for permission. He contacted Sheristedar of the said office (original accused No. 2 Mr. Soma). After 2 or 3 meetings, demand of Rs. 1 lakh was raised for clearing the file for non-agricultural permission. The amount of Rs. 1 lakh was scaled down to Rs. 75,000/-. There was demand verification by the Investigation Agency. A trap was arranged on 23.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent proceeding on leave or he had already approved sanction to Non-agricultural purpose, are the defences that could not be put in acceleration for Section 169 of Cr.P.C. report, as the accused desired. 8. The learned Senior Counsel says, the Director General of Police (in short DGP) does not act as post office. Certainly correct, however, there is nothing before this Court that whatever has been reported by the Investigator to the office of DGP was placed before him in the same manner. He is not an appellate authority. Reference to the Police Manual, or Section 97 of Bombay Police Act is inconsequential. Section 97 of Bombay Police Act reads as under:- "97. A superior Police officer may himself perform duties imposed o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d as a defence by the concerned in the prosecution. Such unwanted effort will frustrate and fracture the prosecution. 11. Affidavit of Shri. Hemant V. Bhat though supports the accused- respondent, however, he should have also equally gone through the papers, he had no reason to accept the doubtful findings of CFSL in respect of recorded conversation between the complainant and accused-respondent No. 1. He has given reference to the Manual. There should not be contest to the Manual, however, it has been twisted for the benefits of the accused-respondent No. 1. 12. The learned Special Judge, basically travelled through the report or the opinion of the Advocate which was not expected. He has swayed away himself by accepting the defences.....