RATNAKAR NARAYAN MORANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against judgment and order dtd. 13/7/2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) in Special Case No. 4/2002. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellant is held guilty for offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' for short). The Appellant/Accused is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 in default to suffer R.I. for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of P.C. Act. He is sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

(2.) The Appellant was tried for the said offences by the learned Special Judge on a Prosecution, which was lodged on complaint from PW-2 - Manohar Asaram Chavan. It is the case of Prosecution that the Complainant approached the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau ('ACB' for short), Aurangabad on 12/10/2001 with a complaint that the present Appellant, who was working as Talathi at the relevant time, demanded an amount of Rs.1500.00 for effecting mutation entries in 7/12 extract. It is stated that the Complainant and his brothers have partitioned the land after their father died ten to twelve years back. There was also a dispute pending between the brothers inter-se in the Civil Court at Aurangabad. It is in this connection the Complainant had approached the Appellant, for effecting entries whereupon alleged demand was made. On the basis of complaint, ACB, Aurangabad laid a trap on the same day. It is alleged that the trap was successful and at the time of trap, the Appellant demanded amount and on demand, Informant paid the amount to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer prepared panchnama, completed investigation and filed a charge-sheet.

(3.) In support of the case of Prosecution, Prosecution examined five witnesses. The defence also examined one witness in support of defence. After recording the evidence and after recording the statement under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned trial Judge held Appellant guilty of the offences and convicted him and further imposed sentences as stated above.