Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
A junior engineer of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), who was booked in 2017 for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 30,000 from a hotel owner, has been acquitted by a special court. The court said that as demolition was carried out at the hotel owner’s property a month before the complaint, it cannot be ruled out that the allegations were made as ‘revenge’.
Rahul Lokhande, booked by the state Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), under charges including relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was cleared by the court which found discrepancies in the case.
According to the prosecution, the hotel owner had carried out some repairs for which a complaint was filed with the civic body. The owner had claimed that Lokhande sought a bribe of Rs 30,000 to grant him permission for regularising the repairs. A trap was accordingly laid down as per the PC Act. However, on the day of the trap on October 10, 2017, he refused to accept the bribe. The ACB then filed a case for demanding a bribe.
During the trial, the junior engineer had submitted to the court that he had carried out a demolition at the hotel owner’s property in September 2017, nearly a month before his complaint. He claimed that false allegations were made against him because of the demolition. The ACB submitted that there was sufficient evidence and that a sanction was also obtained from the BMC to prosecute the accused.
The court said that as per evidence brought before it, the area in the eastern suburb of Bhandup in which the hotel was situated, did not come under the jurisdiction of the junior engineer and the complainant was never asked to clarify on this aspect by the police. It also said that the complainant himself was not sure why the bribe was sought as per his testimony before the court.
“It is also brought on record by accused in the cross examination that because of accused, his construction in the hotel was demolished being illegal. Therefore, the contention of accused that he is falsely implicated to take revenge against him cannot be ruled out,” the court said in its order on September 30, made public on Saturday. The court said that a transcript of a conversation between the accused and the complainant which showed a voice match as per the forensic report was brought before it. But it cannot be relied on without corroboration only because the voice had matched.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
