DADASAHEB BAPUSAHEB NAIK AND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above referred three appellants in three different appeals as original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 respectively and acquitted accused Madhukar Vithal Patekar were tried in Special Case No. 2 of 1977 in the Court of the Special Judge, Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under (1) Section 120-B I.P.C. and (2) Section 420 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. In addition to the above charges, which were framed against all the accused, original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who were officers from various departments working under the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and the Panchayat Samiti Parner, were further charged for offences punishable under Section 477-A read with Section 120-B I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act and further read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. Alternatively, a charge for substantive offences punishable under Sections 420 and 477-A read with Section 109 and/or S. 34, I.P.C. was also framed against all the four accused. The learned Special Judge, while acquitting original accused No. 3 Madhukar Vithal Patekar, who was Extension Officer (Works) working under the Panchayat Samiti, parner of all the offences charged and while acquitting the first three accused of an offence punishable under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 120-B. I.P.C. found that original accused No. 1 Dadasaheb Bapusaheb Naik, Extension Officer (Works under the Panchayat Samiti, parner, original accused No. 2 Malikarjun Parappa Walekar, Deputy Engineer working under the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and original accused No. 4 Popat Rangnath Shinde, a contractor, were guilty of a substantive offence of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under Section 120-B(1) I.P.C. as well as of an offence of cheating committed in furtherance of the criminal conspirary punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 120-B I.P.C. The original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were further convicted for an offence of falsification of accounts punishable under Section 477-A read with S. 120-B I.P.C. Different sentences of imprisonment and fine were imposed on original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and feeling aggrieved by this judgment and order of conviction and the consequential sentences, the above referred three appeals have been filed. Since they arise out of the same judgment, they were heard together by agreement of parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, I propose to refer to the appellants in the three appeals referred to above by their original accused numbers. Accused No. 1 D. B. Naik was working as an Extension Officer (Works) in the Panchayat Samiti, Parner, District Ahmednagar, at the relevant time. This post is equivalent to the post of Overseer as known in Public Works Department. Original accused No. 2 M. P. Walekar was working as Deputy Engineer of the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, and was in charge of a Sub-Division consisting of Ahmednagar and Parner Talukas at the relevant time. The acquitted accused No. 3 M. V. Patekar was working as Junior Extension Officer in the B. and C. Sub-Division of the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were the subordinates of accused No. 2. Original accused No. 4 P. R. Shinde was working as a contractor taking contracts of different works from the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.

(3.) In or about November 1968, the Panchayat Samiti, Parner, resolved to construct Vasant Bhandaras in 10 Villages, namely, (1) Tikhol, (2) Supa, (3) Kanher Ohla (Parner), (4) Alkuti, (5) Palshi, (6) Rayatale, (7) Loni Haveli, (8) Padali Ranjangaon, (9) Kinhi and (10) Hunge. The proposed construction of these Vasant Bandharas was a part of grow more food campaign. It consisted of a scheme of constructing small dams on streamlets and rivulets in the villages for supplying water to the crops. Construction of these small dams involved utilisation of wooden planks and Ahmednagar Zilla Parishad had sanctioned a grant of Rs. 55,000/- to Parner Panchayat Samiti for the construction of Vasant Bhandaras during the year 1968-69. Passing of the necessary Resolution by Parner Panchayat Samiti for construction of Vasant Bhandaras in the 10 villages referred to above constituted administrative approval of the construction work. Plans and estimates for this work of construction of Vasant Bhandaras in the 10 villages referred to above were admittedly prepared by accused No. 1 Naik and were checked by R. B. Raktate (P.W. 28), Assistant Extension Officer (Works). These plans and estimates form part of a file which has been collectively exhibited as Ex. 101 in this case. One of the major items in each plan and estimate related to supply of country cut teak would planks of the size of 4' x 6" x 3" with three coats of tar at the work site and the rate of supply of such teak wood was calculated at Rs. 974/- per cubic meter on the basis of "Scheduled of Rates" for the relevant year prevalent in Ahmednagar B. and C. Division. Accused No. 2 Walekar, in his capacity as Deputy Engineer, was enjoined with the duty of giving technical sanction to the above referred work and he gave it on 19th February 1969. A tender notice inviting quotations is alleged to have been fixed to the Board at the office of Parner Panchayat Samiti for the above referred work on 1st February 1969. It is admitted by all the parties that the total amount of the estimated cost of teak wood planks supporting wooden girders as calculated from the estimates for the 10 villages in question from the file (Ex. 101) comes to about Rs. 27,000/-. In pursuance of the tender notice (Ex. 86), four quotations, being Exs. 88 to 91, were received. The quotation of accused No. 4, quoting the rate of Rs. 972/- per cubic meter, was the lowest. It was accepted, Accused No. 2 Walekar issued a Work Order to accused No. 4 Shinde on the next day, that is, on 10th February 1969. It is at Ex. 92. Its office copy is at Ex. 87. In Ex. 87, the Work "Sagawani," meaning teak wood, has been added in different ink and in different handwriting. Ex. 92 does not contain reference to teak wood and, therefore, it is alleged by the prosecution that the addition of the word "Sagawant" in Ex. 97, which is a typed copy of the Work Order, is an interpolation.