SARDARKHAN RAHIMKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-accused was charged and tried for having committed offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced on each of the counts to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one you and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar, who tried the accused had dealt exhaustively the prosecution cases as well as defence and has scrutinised the evidence at great length, in paragraphs 3 to 11. The learned trial Judge has stated the prosecution case in details. In my view, it is not necessary to reproduce all these details in this judgment except to refer to very briefly, the salient features of the prosecution came.

(3.) The main charge against the accused in the trial Court was that he accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 200/- on the morning of August 17, 1975 in his office at Bhokar, Taluka Shrirampur from one Nanasaheb Bajirao Chaudhari for entering his name in the Record of Right of two lands, viz., Gat Nos. 360 and 414 situated at Bhokar. He was further charged, as stated earlier, under section 5(2) read with section 51(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting the bribe of Rs. 200/- from the complainant by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a Talat. The complainant, Nanasaheb Bajirao Chaudhri, and agriculturist in village Bhokar had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 112 of 1975 against his father Bajirao, younger brother and his mother for partition of two lands bearing Gat No. 360 and 414. The total area of the lands is about 8 acres and the complainant had claimed 1/4 share in the lands. There was a compromise decree passed on June 30, 1975 in the suit and according to the same, the complainant Nanasaheb was given his share of 2 acres and 6 gunthas of lad from Gat No. 414. After getting a certified copy of the decree, Advocate Dokhe who had appeared for the complainant, prepared an application on behalf of the complainant for entering his name in the Record of Rights according to the decree and sent the application to the Talati along with the certified copy of the decree under registered post with A.D. The complainant also approached the Talati and enquired about his application. It is the prosecution case that at this time, the accused has told the complainant that he sold require Rs. 700/- for expenses. The complainant told him that the amount was excessive. The accused thereupon told the complainant to bring permission from the Tahsildar for entering his name since in his opinion as per the decree, the gets or the blocks were to be broken and this would be contrary to the scheme of Consideration Act and Tahsildars permission was necessary under section 85 of the Land Revenue Code for making partition. Thereafter, the complainant and his Advocate Dokhe, approached the Tahsildar who informed them that the matter will be sent to the Circle Officer Thanekar (P.W. 6) thereafter held an enquiry and submitted his report (Exhiibt 22) to Tahsildar (P.W. 11) gave two copies of the order to the complainant on August 14, 1975, Advocate Dokhe prepared an application (Exhibit 35) and gave it to the complaint for giving the same to the accused along with the order of the Tahsildar. When the complainant approached the accused with the order of the Tahsildar, it is the case of the prosecution that the complain ant was told by the accused that he would require Rs. 200/- for making entire. Even though the complainant is alleged to have told the accused that whatever was necessary was done and there was no occasion for the accused to ask for money, the accused maintained that he would require the money for doing the work.