RAJENDRA WAMAN VARADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. G. Avachat, J 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dtd. 17/1/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4 cum Special Judge (ACB), Nanded in Special Case (ACB) No.14 of 2014, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C. Act ') and consequential sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and four years, respectively. He was also directed to pay total fine of Rs.25,000.00.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: PW1 - Manda (complainant) was a small saving agent.

(3.) Shri Rajput (PW4), therefore, secured presence of two Government officials to act as panch witnesses. He gave the complainant and panch witnesses necessary instructions in that regard. The complainant accompanied by a shadow witness (PW2) Vaishali, went to the complainant 's office. The voice recorder was concealed on the person of the complainant. During interaction with the appellant, he made a demand of Rs.1,000.00. The complainant assured him to be back within a while to pay him the amount since the amount was not with her that time. Both, the complainant and the panch witness came back to PW4 Rajput. The recorded conversion was played. It was reduced to writing. Thus, the demand verification panchanama (Exh.32) was drawn. Thereafter, the complainant accompanied by a shadow witness again went to the office of the appellant. He demanded the bribe money. He, however, asked the amount to be kept in a file. He refused it to receive by his hands. The complainant, therefore, placed the bribe money on the printer at the complainant's table. She, then, gave a predetermined signal. PW4 - Rajput accompanied by his team members rushed to the room. Took charge of the bribe money. Scene of offence-cum post trap panchanama (Exh.33) was drawn. He, then, lodged the First Information Report (FIR) (Exh.72.) on behalf of the State. He, himself did the investigation. Statements of the persons conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case were recorded. The same came to be sent along with the recorded conversations to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (C.F.S.L.) The report thereof was received. Then, all the papers of investigation were submitted to the Commissioner, Small Savings and State Lottery.