RASHESH DILIP JOSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA

                                                       4-REVN-392-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2025

    Rashesh Dilip Joshi                                    ...Applicant/s
    VERSUS
    The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.                        ...Respondent/s

    _________________________________________________________________

    Mr. Sagar Shahani a/w. Abheek Melwani, Advocate for Applicant.
    Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
    Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w. Ms. Saili Dhuru a/w. Mr. Ajay Joshi a/w. Mr.
    Sumitkumar Nimbalkar a/w. Mr. Digvijay Kachare for Respondent-CBI.
    _________________________________________________________________

                                          CORAM    :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                          DATE     : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
    P.C. :

    1.         Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and

    learned counsel for Respondent-CBI.

    2.         The challenge in this application is the impugned order passed

    by the Learned Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay, Mumbai against

    rejection of discharge application.

    3.         It is prosecution's case that Accused No.1 Rajesh Rane had

    demanded Rs.20,000/- on behalf of Accused No.2 - Penter Kumar

    Jayaswal, Examiner (Customs) Mumbai i.e. public servant to clear the

    complainant's consignment pending in Air Cargo complex.                 After

    negotiation, the bribe   amount reduced to Rs.12,000/-.   Thereafter,     the

    complainant filed complaint which was verified in the presence of panchas.


                                     Page 1 of 4
                                                           4-REVN-392-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam


    The complainant when asked Accused No.1                about    status of his

    consignment,         on which accused No.1 Rajesh Rane informed the

    complainant that the consignment has already been cleared last night by

    paying Rs.12,000/- to Accused No.2 as agreed by them on whatsapp.

    Accused No.1 further informed that he has paid the amount of Rs.12,000/-

    to accused No.2- Custom Officer. A trap was laid on 30/05/2023 and

    Accused No.1 caught red handed while demanding and accepting

    Rs.12,000/- from the complainant. Accused No.1 informed that he had

    handed over         the bribe     money to the present Applicant for further

    forwarding to Accused No.2. There is transcript of conversation between

    the Applicant, Accused No.2 - public servant.

    4.              It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that

    Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.        The Applicant was

    apprehended during the post trap proceeding.          There is nothing against

    the Applicant except the conversation recorded between applicant and

    Accused No.2. But this fact has not considered by the Learned Sessions

    Judge and has passed the order which is erroneous and requested

    to allow the application.         Learned counsel for the Applicant relied on

    (1) Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani and Anr. v/s State of Maharashtra

    Through Assistant Commissioner of Police1;         (2) Pravinkumar Pitambar

    Deore v/s. State of Maharashtra2.
    1    2019 SCC Online Bom 13130,
    2    2017 SCC Online Bom 9585.

                                         Page 2 of 4
                                                         4-REVN-392-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam


    5.         It is contention of learned SPP that Applicant was part of chain,

    who accepted the bribe       from the Complainant.       Applicant accepted

    Rs.10,000/- from Accused No.1 i.e. private person and handed over the

    amount to Accused No.2 i.e. public servant.       The conversation between

    Applicant and Accused No.2- public servant is produced on record, which

    shows the role of the Applicant that he had handed over the bribe amount

    to public servant. It shows his involvement in the crime . Applicant was

    custom clearing agent at Air Cargo, Bombay. There is sufficient material

    against him.   The Learned Special Judge has passed well reasoned order.

    No interference is required in it and requested to reject the application.

    6.         I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and

    documents produced on record. There are specific allegations against the

    Applicant that he had taken Rs.10,000/- from Accused No.1 and handed

    over to Accused No.2, who was public servant. The conversation recorded

    between Applicant and Accused No.2 is produced on record. It shows that

    there was transaction of Rs.5,000/- between them.        They were speaking

    about bribe money. It is settled law that accused can be discharged when

    there is no case at all. The conversation between Applicant and Accused

    No.2 shows prima facie involvement of the Applicant in the crime. I have

    gone through the case laws cited by learned counsel for the Applicant. The

    facts of the present case and cited cases are different. Hence, the same are



                                     Page 3 of 4
                                                         4-REVN-392-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam


    not applicable to the present case and I pass following order:

                                      ORDER

               Criminal Revision Application is rejected.



                                                   (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                     Page 4 of 4