ARUN RAMCHANDRA KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a Telecom Mechanic working with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BSNL' for short) was convicted for accepting illegal gratification by the Special Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldhana on 9th March, 2004. The conviction was under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged before this Court by him. Apart from the usual grounds of reliability of the testimony of the complainant, the appellant-accused took two more objections. One pertains to the authority of State Anti Corruption Bureau to investigate an offence against him (who is an employee of the Government company) and second pertains to lack of competency in the sanctioning authority to grant sanction. Alternatively, he has also taken a ground that being the employee of BSNL, he cannot be said to be a public servant (who was earlier employee of Department of Telecom and who is now absorbed in BSNL) and hence cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The appeal needs to be considered on these points. Learned Advocate Shri S.D. Chande argued on behalf of the appellant-accused, whereas Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.A. Ashirgade argued for the State. He relied upon some citations. Both of them assisted me in going through the record and citations. I am required to decide the appeal on the following points.

(3.) Complainant-Suresh Eknathrao Mehsare was resident of Sulaj, Tahsil Jalgaon Jamod, District Buldhana. He was having a telephone connection, which was not working. The appellant being a Telephone Mechanic, was having the task of repairing the telephone connection within the area of Jalgaon Jamod. That is not disputed. What is disputed is, whether the appellant being an absorbed employee of BSNL, is a public servant or not. There are two versions to that issue. One is, the complainant's version. The demand for Rs.400/- was made on 11/02/2002 for the first time and unhesitatingly the complainant agreed for Rs. 300/-. It prompted the complainant to take the assistance of Anti Corruption Bureau on that date. Whereas, the appellant's version is, he removed the fault on 12/02/2002 and he has not demanded the amount and in fact Rs.300/- was given to him forcibly. He has also suggested one reason for false implication. The department was anticipating an action against the complainant for shifting of the telephone without permission and that is why false complaint is lodged. There is a defence witness viz. Shri Ashok Ramdas Wankhede examined to show what happened on that day.