RANGNATH RAMKRISHNA NAPHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Ratnagiri, dated 19-11-1984 convicting the appellant for offences under Section 161, I. P. C. , Section 5 (1) (d) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 201 read with 511, I. P. Code

(2.) THE facts of the case are as under : the offence was alleged to have been committed on 22-7-1983. The appellant at that time was attached to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior division and Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Ratnagiri. Between 1-7-1983 and 25-7-1983 he was working as Superintendent/clerk of the Court in the said Court. He was thus a Government employee in Judicial service and was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal code. Amongst other duties it was his duty to sign the summonses to defendants as prescribed in Para 594 of Chapter XXXI read with Para 31 of Chapter-III of the Civil Manual (1986) issued by the High Court of judicature at Bombay.

(3.) SMT. Virmati, wife of Sadashiv Borkar (PW 2), had filed Regular civil Suit No. 1. 55 of 1982 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, ratnagiri against five persons namely (i) Bhaigav Shivram Khandkar, (ii)Vishnu Ramchandra Phansalkar, (iii) Vasudev Ramchandra Phansalkar, (iv)Keshav Ramchandra Phansalkar and (v) Krishnaji Babyya Phansalkar residents of village Partavane, Ratnagiri, for declaration of ownership in respect of S. No. 417, Hissa No, 6, and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from obstructing the Wahiwat of the plaintiff in the suit property. In the plaint of that suit (Exhibit-23) no cause of action was pleaded against Defendants 2 to 5 and all thai was stated was that defendant No. 1 had misappropriated some other lands of Defendants No. 2 to 5. The reliefs were sought only against Defendant No. 1. The suit was instituted on 25-10-1982. The plaintiff in that suit was represented by shri Mukadam, Advocate. P. W. 2 Sadashvi was attending to the matter as constituted attorney of the plaintiff. On 12-11-1982 summonses were ordered to be issued to Defendants 1 to 5. Defendant No. 1 was served but defendants No. 2 to 5 could not be served with the summonses. On 17-3-1983 on an application made on behalf of the plaintiff summonses to them were directed to be issued and published in the newspaper 'ratnagiri Times' returnable on 28-4-1983. Plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs. 250 towards publication charges. However, as the plaintiff did not deposit the said amount the summonses were not prepared and sent for publication till 7-5-1983. On that day the date was extended to 28-6-1983. However, the summonses were not issued till 15-5-1983 for want of draft. The roznama of 28-6-1983 records that 'draft of publication not supplied by the Advocate of the plaintiff'. The above noted details are part of the roznama of the suit produced in evidence in this case at Exhibit-34.