KESHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Original Accused prosecuted for offence punishable under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act for short). After trial, by judgment dtd. 21/1/2010, the Special Judge, Dhule in Special Case No. 75/2005, has held the Appellant guilty of the said offences and the Appellant is accordingly convicted. He is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for three months for the offence under Sec. 7 of P.C. Act. He is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 in default to suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of PC Act.

(2.) The story of the Prosecution in short is as below:

(3.) It is a case that the Informant and his wife decided to start practice, for that she decided to resign. Accordingly in December, 2004 she submitted her resignation. However she stopped coming to College even before the expiry of notice period. It is for this reason, the office of Dean issued her a notice directing to deposit one month's salary Rs.8000.00. The Informant therefore, approached the Appellant, who was working as Clerk in establishment sec. . This Appellant told Informant to deposit Rs.8000.00 or else the resignation will not be accepted. He suggested that if medical certificate is submitted then resignation will be accepted and there will be no need to deposit of Rs.8000.00. The Informant thereafter sent medical certificate to the Health Department of Dean. Thereafter Informant made an enquiry with the Appellant, who demanded amount of Rs.1500.00 for the work, which was settled to Rs.1000.00. The Informant therefore approached the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint against the Appellant on 20/4/2005. On lodging of the complaint, ACB decided to lay a trap by following usual procedure. Panchas were called. The procedure of trap was explained to them. On the day of complaint, only a trap was arranged. It is stated that the trap was successful and Appellant was caught red handed after he accepted the bribe amount.