DATTATRAYA JAGANNATHRAO ZOMBADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction in Special Case (AC) No.8/2000 by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad on 07.10.2005, for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, "P.C. Act").

(2.) The present appellant i.e. original accused was the Awwal Karkun, working with Tahsil Office, Osmanabad in January, 2000.

(3.) Original complainant Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Kasimsaab, R/o Khirni Malla, Osmanabad lodged complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau on 03.01.2000. He contended that he is 'Takari' by caste and he wanted loan from Bank for his business purpose. He came to know that due to his caste he can get immediate loan and also some concession, and therefore, he was in need of caste certificate. He gave application to Tahsil Office for issuance of his caste certificate in August, 1998. He had attached certain documents along with his application. After some time, when he made inquiry with the Tahsil Office about his application, he came to know that the said application has been assigned to present accused. He was not knowing the designation as well as full name of the accused. But he was certain that he serves with Tahsil Office. After some days of filing that application, he had met accused and requested him to issue caste certificate. Accused asked him to come after three days. After three days he met accused. Accused told him that his application has been assigned to him but he should meet him 2-3 days thereafter. He further states that he lost the acknowledgment in respect of application filed by him in August, 1998, and therefore, he made fresh application for getting caste certificate on 15.06.1999. After the acknowledgment regarding that application was received by him, he had gone to Tahsil Office about 20 times and met accused with a request to issue the certificate, but each time he was asked to come after few days. He went to Tahsil Office on 03.01.2000 and met the accused and made again the same request. At that time, the accused told that the Tahsildar has not signed the certificate and it was told that now the work of issuing of certificate of Takari caste is closed, and therefore, it is hard for him to get such certificate. Informant again requested that he should give him that certificate as it is utmost necessary and asked the accused to find out some way. The accused told him that he will have to prepare back dated certificate. Complainant could not understand it, but then told the accused that he may do anything but he should give him the certificate. Accused then told him that he should give him amount of Rs.2,000/- and then he would issue a back dated certificate. Complainant shown him the financial disability and asked as to whether that amount of Rs.2,000/- is a Government fee. Accused told that it is not a Government fee, but then he will have to give that amount. At that time the complainant realized that accused was demanding bribe of Rs.2,000/-. After much request from the complainant that amount was lowered to Rs.1,500/-. The complainant agreed to give that amount, as no alternative was left. Accused told that if he gives that amount him on that day, then he would prepare the certificate within 2-3 days. Complainant took time from him to give that amount and accordingly accused told him to come on 04.01.2000. Accused told that the complainant should give him amount of Rs.1,000/- on the next day and remaining Rs.500/- after the certificate is received by the complainant. The complainant had no intention to give bribe, and therefore, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged the complaint.