CHINTAMAN NARAYAN NATU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a case under section 161 read with 34 and 120-B of the I. P. C. and under section 5 (1) (d) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "p. C. Act" for short), two accused were prosecuted. The present petitioner is accused No. 2 and original accused No. 1 Dattatraya Mahipati Chavan. Out of them Dattatraya was acquitted by the Special Judge, Pune and present accused-appellant came to be convicted under section 5 (1) (d) r/w 5 (2) of the P. C. Act and was sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default R. I. for two months. The present accused was also convicted under section 161 of the I. P. C. , but no separate sentence was awarded under that section. The original accused No. 1 Dattatraya was acquitted of all the charges.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Deshpande for the appellant and the learned A. P. P. for the State.

(3.) THE prosecution case was as under: the appellant was working as a Chief Officer for Saswad Municipal Council in 1984 and acquitted original accused No. 1 was the Administrator of the Council. The complainant in this case was one Dharmaraj Maruti Kolte, who was running printing press styled as Kolte Printing Press. According to him on 12-11-1984 accused appellant informed him that voters list were to be printed and Council was inviting tenders for the same. Present appellant-accused asked the complainant to submit his tender for doing the said work. On 15-11-1984 complainant submitted his tender and deposited tender amount of Rs. 200/ -. However, accused appellant told him that atleast three tenders were necessary and therefore as advised by the accused-appellant, complainant Kolte submitted two other tenders or caused them to be submitted from two persons related to him. The tender of the complainant was accepted because tender amount was not deposited by other two persons. After the acceptance of the tender of the complainant certain calculations were made and accused is alleged to have demanded Rs. 1350/- for sanctioning the tender work. Accused appellant took the complainant to acquitted accused, they had a talk and it was agreed that amount of Rs. 675/- each should be paid to accused-appellant and the acquitted accused. On the same day both the accused went to the press of the complainant, where complainant paid Rs. 500/- out of the agreed amount to the accused No. 1. On 17-11-1984 complainant deposited security deposit amount in respect of the said tender on 29-11-1984 he printed 1400 voters list and submitted to the Council and remaining voters list was submitted on 17-12-1984. The appellant-accused on seeing the delivery note dated 17-12-1984 asked the complainant to change the date from 17-12-1984 to 29-11-1984 otherwise the complainant would be required to pay penalty for causing delay in submitting the tender work in time. Accordingly, the date was changed, bill was submitted by the complainant for Rs. 7140. On 20-12-1984 accused went to the office of the Council to enquire about the cheque. The cashier told him that the cheque was ready and asked him to sign on the voucher, the cashier asked the complainant to see the appellant-accused. Accused No. 2 is alleged to have told the complainant that accused No. 1 was dissatisfied because voters list of Jejuri Municipal Council were printed at the rate of Rs. 26/- to Rs. 27/- per page and therefore the rate quoted by the appellant were excessive. It is alleged that on this pretext both the accused increased their demand. Calculations were made and the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 2320/--as extra amount to both the accused. Complainant did not agree. However, the amount was agreed to Rs. 1,000/- each to the accused-appellant and the acquitted accused. He had already paid Rs. 500/- therefore Rs. 1,500/- were to be paid for which the complainant was called on 24-12-1984. Thereafter, complainant lodged the complaint with the Inspector Harshe of Anti Corruption Bureau, a trap was led in presence of panchas and on 24-12-1984 the raiding party with complainant went to the office of the appellant. He had gone out for some work therefore they again came back in the afternoon and in the evening the complainant is said to have paid the amount of Rs. 1,500/- of bribe to the accused-appellant keeping that currency with anthracene powder in an envelope given by the accused. The said envelope was recovered from the drawer of the table of the accused and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed and accused-appellant came to be convicted whereas the original accused No. 1-Dattatraya was acquitted.