M W MOHIUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried under Section 13 (d) (i) (ii) read with S. 13 (2 and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('act' for short) and was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to undergo six months' R1 and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 in default of payment of which to further undergo three' months' R1. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the High court. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant, at the relevant time, was working as a Special Auditor under the control of the Chief Auditor, Local Fund Accounts, Bombay. The audit of the accounts of the Gram Panchayat, Chanaji Takali in Wardha District was to be done from 25/11/1981 as per the memo of District Sub-Auditor received by Sarpanch Ramrao Hole, Public Witness 1. The accused went to the said village on 11/11/1981 and started auditing the accounts of the Gram Panchayat. He disclosed to Public Witness 1 that there were some audit objections and Public Witness 1 would be required to remit an amount of Rs. 1,600. 00 and in case of non- deposit of the money, a criminal prosecution would be started. The appellant further told Public Witness 1 that if he pays Rs. 500. 00 the audit objections would be removed. Later on, the amount of demand was reduced to Rs. 400. 00 and Public Witness 1 agreed to arrange for the same and the appellant asked him to bring theamount to Annapurna Hotel, Wardha on 13/11/1981 between 1 and 2 p. m. Public Witness 1, however, approached the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and a lodged a complaint. Public Witness 7, the Inspector of Vigilance arranged a trap. PWs 2 and 6, officials belonging to the Forests Department were required to act as panchas. The necessary proceedings were drawn up and the currency notes of Rs. 400. 00 were subjected to phenolphthalein powder and directions were given to Public Witness 1 and the panchas that if the amount was accepted as per demand by the accused, the necessary signal should be given by Public Witness 1 by rubbing his handkerchief on his face. As per the prior arrangement Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 6 went to Annapurna Hotel at about 1.30 p. m. The appellant was not present there at that time but they came to know from the owner of Taj Hotel situated just in front of Annapurna Hotel that the appellant had gone to his office and would be returning at about 3 or 4 p. m. At about 4.30 or 5 p. m. the appellant came to Taj Hotel and all of them had tea and there was discussion about the preparation of audit note. The appellant asked Public Witness 1 as to whether he had brought the money and when Public Witness 1 answered-in the affirmative, the appellant asked Public Witness 1 to accompany him to Room No. 8 in Annapurna Hotel in which the appellant was staying. Public Witness 1 followed the appellant. When they reached the first floor of the Hotel, the appellant took out one handkerchief from his right pocket and asked Public Witness 1 to wrap the amount in the handkerchief and then it should be given to him. The appellant also told PWs 1 and 6 that they should stand there and meanwhile he would bring his bag from his room. The appellant went in and came out with his bag and asked Public Witness 1 to keep the handkerchief in which the money was wrapped on that bag which was kept on the cot in the corridor in front of Room No. 10 of the Hotel. Public Witness 1 accordingly took out the money from his pocket, wrapped in the handkerchief given by the accused and kept it along with the money on the bag and thereafter he gave the necessary signal. On receiving the signal, Public Witness 7 and other members of the trap party came there and asked the appellant not to move and coming to know from Public Witness 1 that the money was wrapped in the handkerchief and was kept on the bag the same was seized by Public Witness 7 and a demonstration of phenolphthalein powder test was conducted which proved positive. The numbers on the currency notes were verified with the numbers noted in the earlier panchnama and after completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid.

(3.) The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Public Witness I, the two panchas PWs 2 and 6 and Public Witness 7, the investigating officer. Public Witness 8 is the officer who accorded the sanction. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellant denied the offence and pleaded not guilty. His defence was of total denial and he stated that he was falsely implicated. The trial court accepted the prosecution case and convicted him and the same has been confirmed by the High court.