BABURAO GANPATI BHOI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 10/10/2007 passed by the Special Judge, Kolhapur in Special Case No.11/2002. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act') and was sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 and in default to suffer RI for three months. The appellant was also convicted for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the P.C. Act and was sentenced to suffer RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,500.00 and in default to suffer RI for six months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was given set-off under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period he had spent in detention during investigation and trial.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellant was working as a Talathi at Sake-Sajja, Taluka-Kagal, District-Kolhapur from 13/8/1997 to 8/4/2002. The complainant-Mahipati Patil's family was having an ancestral land. They were shown as licensees of the Government. The lands in the area were acquired for construction of a canal. The other land owners were given compensation, but, the complainant's family could not get compensation as they were not shown as owners of the land i.e. Gat No.1507/B situated in that village. The complainant had approached the appellant for making correction in the revenue record so that they could be shown as owners of the land and not as mere licensees. It was alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.2,000.00 for doing their work. On 19/1/2002, the complainant Mahipat Patil and his cousin Dattatraya Patil met the appellant in a village Belawade (khurd), where the appellant demanded Rs.2,000.00. On 21/1/2002, again they met the appellant and requested him to bring down the amount. The appellant asked to pay Rs.1,000.00 on 23/1/2002. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 22/1/2002 and gave his complaint. API Sanjay Nikam reduced his complaint into writing and arranged to lay a trap on 23/1/2002 by calling two panchas. The raiding party went to the office of the appellant on 23/1/2002 at about 2.30 p.m.. One of the panchas accompanied the complainant inside the office of the appellant. As per the prosecution case, the appellant accepted Rs.1,000.00 which were given by the complainant. Those notes were having anthracene powder. The complainant gave a pre-arranged signal. API Nikam and others rushed inside the office and caught the appellant. His pant-pocket and fingers showed presence of anthracene powder. The money was recovered from his pant-pocket. Post-trap panchanam was conducted. API Nikam then lodged his FIR at Kagal police station. The investigation was carried out. Charge-sheet was filed and the appellant faced the trial as the sole-accused.

(3.) During trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 the Deputy Collector Kadam as the Sanctioning Authority, PW-2 Mahipati Patil as the complainant, PW-3 Nandkumar Gawali as a Pancha who accompanied the complainant when the bribe amount was allegedly accepted by the appellant, and PW-4 API Nikam who was the investigating officer.