VISHNU KONDAJI JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conviction of the appellant is for offence under S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('the Act) read with S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the appellant was that he was a lineman in the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and also did the work of meter readings of the electricity consumed. The complainant had installed an electric motor and a pumpset in his field. The appellant used to visit the complainant. The complainant, in March 1975, received an electricity bill from the Electricity Board for a sum of Rs.651.91 for the consumption of 1129 units. This bill appeared to be excessive to the complainant. On 13-5-1975, the appellant approached the complainant and at that time the complainant asked him as to why the bill for the month of March was so excessive. The appellant accused then demanded from the complainant a sum of Rs. 200/- and promised that in future he would not get excessive bills. The complainant told the appellant that he did not have money at that time; however, he would pay the same afterwards. The accused then told the complainant that he was going out of town to Bhusawal for a marriage on 18-5-1075 and that the complainant should meet him in Bhusawal at the Mahajan Cloth Stores at about 11.00 a.m. on that day.

(2.) On 15-5-1975, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Office at Jalgaon and met Inspector Kasture there. The complainant apprised the Inspector of the demand made by the appellant and the Inspector recorded the complainant's statement. The complainant then handed over Rs. 200/- to Kasture for the purpose of being paid to the accused as bribe. The Inspector asked him to contact him again on 17-5-1975. The complainant approached the Inspector in his office and the Inspector in turn took the complainant to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalgaon. The complainant's complaint was handed over to the learned magistrate. The Magistrate granted permission to Inspector Kasture to investigate the offence under S. 5A of the Act. The trap was arranged at the Mahajan Cloth Stores, the next day. However, on that day, the appellant did not turn up.

(3.) The appellant again visited the complainant on 20-6-1975 making the same demand of Rs. 200 Again the complainant approached the Inspector of Police - this time Inspector Mukim. Permission from the Judicial Magistrate was taken on 24-6-1975 and the trap was arranged on the same day. This time also the appellant did not turn up and the trap failed. On the third occasion, i.e., on 6-7-1975, the complainant met the appellant and the appellant made the same demand of Rs. 200/- as bribe. This time the complainant approached Inspector Mukim on 7-7-1975 and apprised him of the demand made by the appellant. On this occasion, however, Inspector Mukim only recorded the statement of the complainant and proceeded to arrange for the trap which was arranged on 9-7-1975 at the same place, viz. Mahajan Cloth Stores. Admittedly, on this occasion, Inspector Mukim did not obtain the permission from the Magistrate. However, on this occasion, the appellant turned up and accepted the sum of Rs. 200/ - pursuant to which he was trapped and after usual formalities, he was booked for the offence in question.