VIJAYKUMAR RAGHUNATH GOSAVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails his conviction in Special Case No.1 of 2011 at the hands of Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, on being charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the PC Act"). By the impugned judgment delivered on 24/5/2012, the appellant, on his conviction, has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fne of Rs.5,000.00, in default to suffer S.I. for six months, on both the counts i.e. on conviction under Sec. 7 and for conviction under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is sought to be established through fve witnesses.

(3.) On receipt of the complaint, PW 4 -Uday Aaphale, working as P.I. in the ACB offce at Satara, typed it on his computer and after obtaining the signature of the complainant, on reading of the complaint, he called two panchas from the District Employment Offce at 11.30 a.m., who are examined as PW 2 and PW 3 respectively. The panchas were introduced to the complainant and were supplied the copy of the complaint. In order to verify the complaint, the complainant was asked to make phone call to the appellant, who told the complainant to come with an amount of Rs.10,000.00, which the complainant had managed to collect. On such verifcation, it was decided to lay a trap. The complainant produced amount of Rs.10,000.00 in the currency notes of Rs.500.00 and after completing the necessary formalities and on applying the anthracene powder on the said notes, the notes were placed in left shirt pocket of the complainant and the paper on which the powder was applied to the currency notes and the cotton swab by which it was applied as well as the box of the anthracene powder was kept in one packet and it was sealed and kept in the drawer of the ACB offcer, after obtaining signature of the complainant and the panch witnesses. The complainant was handed over a tape-recorder by the ACB offcer with one cassette of 90 minutes inserted in it and the sample of his voice was recorded on 'A' side of the cassette. He was directed to switch on the tape-recorder before entering the offce of the appellant. Panch No.1 (PW 2) was asked to accompany the complainant so as to listen the conversation and take note of the activities whereas panch No.2 was instructed to accompany the members of the raiding party and to keep watch about the signal. This is how, the trap was laid involving panch Nos.1 and 2.