STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BABURAO SAKHARAM GAWAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 28/06/2000 passed by Learned Special judge , Buldana in Special Case No. 2 of 1992 whereby the Respondent accused was acquitted of offenses punishable under Section 7,13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.

(2.) Facts stated are:

(3.) According to the Complainant his Father had received the notice and he wanted to close the case by approaching the accused. The trial court found that the case of the complainant as to first demand itself was not believable for want of convincing evidence. PW 1 Kishorkumar had admitted that he reached the office of the accused on 16/08/1991 at about 12.00 to 12.30 hrs. The accused had asked him whether he had brought the register and the receipt. The accused offered to close the case for sum of Rs.300/ . Reliance was sought on the evidence of Ramadas Borate (PW 4) for corroboration, however, PW 4 frankly stated in the evidence that his statement was not recorded by anybody. The evidence of the PW 1 and PW 4 read in juxta position do not disclose as to who had made first offer to close the case. Ex 24 was a paper seized with powder detected as alleged. Defense of the accused is that he had neither demanded any amount from the complainant on 16/08/1991or 19/08/1991 nor accepted any amount from the complainant. It is case of the accused that earlier also the the complainant had lodged false report against the accused as the accused had given notice to the father of the complainant and in that case father of the complainant was required to pay additional amount to the agricultural labourer employed by father of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant had grudge against the accused. The accused had been on the routine visit to Dongarkhandala on 16/07/1991 when Son of Ramgopal Chandak had abused the accused about which the accused had reported to his superior officer also. The accused had after attending some work on 16/08/1991 in his office the accused had proceeded to village Kolwad at about 12.00 noontime and the complainant did not met him on that day. On 19/081991 the complainant had came to his office along with one person of his village to the office when they were formally talking about the health of father of the complainant. They had gone out to have tea. On returning the complainant said threat he has some work with the accused. Therefore the accused told him that they will go to the office. When the accused reached the office, Peon told him that there was telephone call for him. When the accused went to make the phone call in the cabin of the Labour officer, at that time the complainant had followed the accused in the chamber of the Labour officer, followed by 7 8 persons who came there and one of them caught the hand of the accused and other informed him that he is Inspector of the Anti corruption Bureau and asked him whether he has accepted the money from any one. Search of the accused was taken but no amount was found with him. Other person had found the amount kept in the booklet , Labour gazette, in the wooden rack in that cabin which was seized by the Police. The accused was asked to dip his fingers in the sodium carbonate solution but the color did not change. Thus according to defence the amount was not accepted but planted by the complainant himself behind the back of the accused by hiding it in a booklet in a wooden rack in that cabin when the accused had gone to the cabin to make the telephone call. Thus, the accused had disputed that he demanded or accepted any amount from the complainant. The accused entered in the defence to examine four witnesses namely then Labour officer Shri Avinash Dharkar, DW 2 Premsagar Kamble who had written the Chit (Ex 124) inside of which the alleged bribe amount was found.DW2 deposed that he had given the chit to the complainant for handing over to the accused and not to Sharad Misal who handed over to the accused as allege by the prosecution 3 is Shridhar Vaidya, Peon who had informed the accused about the phone call which he had received. Pursuant to which the accused went to make the phone call in the cabin of the Labour officer 4 Jagdeorao, villager from Kolwad who deposed about the visit of the accused to the village Kolwad on 16/08/1991. The witness deposed that he had met the accused on that day at the Bus stand and had talk with the accused at village Kolwad.