SOU. MANGALABAI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to a conviction recorded against the accused appellant - Sou. Mangalabai under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short). The sentence imposed is rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (02) years more.

(2.) The accused appellant is the wife of one Bhaskar Shankar Wagh who was a public servant at the relevant point of time. The learned courts below held the charge under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 IPC to be proved, inter alia, on the basis of findings recorded with respect to one property i.e. "Prabham" bungalow [worth Rs. 10 lakh (Rupees Ten lakh)] which stood in the name of the accused appellant. According to the accused appellant, she had acquired the said property by way of a gift from her father which was made on 31st March, 1986. The High Court in considering the aforesaid plea took into account the fact that the construction of the house on the property in question had begun in the year 1984 and also the fact that the husband of the accused appellant had not declared the gift in question to the authorities of the Government which is a mandatory requirement under the Service Rules. Further it was held that the plea set up by the accused appellant had not been proved by examining the father of the accused appellant. The aforesaid findings arrived at on the basis of the materials on record are unassailable and in the absence of any contrary materials must be allowed to stand. If that is so, we can find no fault with the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section Section 109 IPC.

(3.) Insofar as the sentence imposed is concerned, learned counsel for the accused appellant has urged that the appellant is aged about 62 years and is suffering from various ailments and also paralysis.