SAKHARAM TRYMBAK PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/original accused, has challenged his conviction and sentence for offences under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 along with the sentence of R. I. for a year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on both counts in default R. I. for three months.

(2.) THE appellant was charged on the following facts. Madhaorao Gadekar (P. W. 3 ) was looking after the property of his brothers inspite of the partition amongst themselves. They held the landed properties at village Birsingpur and Deulghat. Madhaorao (P. W. 3) being the President of a Co-operative Society as per the rules of the Society, he could not obtain any loan in his name. Therefore, he had to obtain loan from the society in the name of his brother Yadeorao. At the material time, he approached the Secretary of the society one Deokar for obtaining a fresh loan in the name of his brother-Yadeorao. Deokar told him to repay the arrears. Accordingly, Madhaorao (P. W. 3) paid the arrears and met Deokar on 6-5-1983. Deokar thereupon advised him to bring a fresh 7/12 extract from the Patwari. Consequently Madhaorao (P. W. 3) approached the appellant who was the Patwari working at Deulghat on 7-5-1983 and demanded 7/12 extract in respect of the field belonging to his brother Yadeo. The appellant asked him to pay the arrears of land revenue. Madhaorao (P. W. 3) paid the arrears of land revenue and obtained receipt thereof. When he demanded the 7/12 extract from the appellant, the appellant asked him to come after 2/3 days, as his officers were in the village on that day. So Madhaorao (P. W. 3) approached the appellant on 10-5-1983. On that day, the appellant gave him evasive replies. Therefore, Madhaorao (P. W. 3) again approached him on 16-5-1983 in the shop of one Digambar Mistri and demanded 7/12 extract. However, the appellant told him that as his office was situated at Buldhana, he would give the extract wanted by him at Buldhana. Madhaorao then went to the office of the appellant at Buldhana on 18-5-1983. According to the prosecution, appellant asked Madhaorao (P. W. 3) that he would not give 7/12 extract unless an amount of Rs. 50/- was paid to him and asked Madhaorao that he should meet him in the office at Buldhana at 2 P. M. on the same day where he would give the 7/12 extract on receiving Rs. 50/ -. It is because of this alleged demand of the appellant that Madhaorao (P. W. 3) approached the Anti Corruption Bureau at Buldhana and gave a complaint Ex. 26 at 12. 30 noon on the same day. On account of this complaint C. P. I. Pund (P. W. 6) arranged the trap and accordingly called two panchas including Rupkumar Wadnagare (P. W. 4 ). The necessary preparation was made by treating the currency notes of Rs. 50/- which were to be given by Madhaorao (P. W. 3) to the appellant on being demanded by him, with Phenolphthalein powder. With this preparation the raiding party along with the Panchas proceeded to the office of the appellant. Madhaorao (P. W. 3) was instructed to give a signal by waving the handkerchief after the amount was accepted by the appellant. Rupkumar (P. W. 4) was instructed to accompany the complainant Madhaorao and the other Panch was instructed to remain with the raiding party.

(3.) THEREAFTER Madhaorao (P. W. 3) went to the office of the appellant at Buldhana. When he went inside he found the appellant present along with one Jadhav (D. W. 1) and Kayande who is examined as prosecution witness No. 2. After some time, the accused started preparing 7/12 extract for Madhaorao (P. W. 3 ). First 7/12 extract in respect of field situated at Birsingpur was prepared by the appellant. Jadhao (D. W. 1) who was a suspended patwari prepared the 7/12 extract for the complainant in respect of the field situated at Deulghat. In the mean time Revenue Inspector Joshi came inside the office of the appellant. He asked the complainant orally to offer him tea. Accordingly, complainant accompanied by the appellant, Revenue Inspector Joshi, Kayande (P. W. 2) and Jadhav (D. W. 2) went to the hotel of one Dhandukiya. Rupkumar (P. W. 4) the panch witness followed them in the hotel. Complainant Madhaorao sat on a bench by the side of the appellant, whereas Joshi and Kayanade sat on another bench. Panch witness Rupkumar (P. W. 4) sat by their side and they had coffee. It is alleged that while they were drinking coffee, the appellant whispered to the complainant not to give the amount in presence of the Revenue Inspector Shri Joshi. After drinking coffee, complainant went to the counter to give money to the hotel owner. In the mean time, Joshi and Kayande went out of the hotel. After that, it is alleged that the appellant approached complainant Madhaorao and asked him to give him the amount of Rs. 50/- for supplying the copy of 7/12 extract. At that time, Rupkumar (P. W. 4) panch witness came to the counter to pay for his own coffee. The complainant thereafter took out the currency note from the pocket of his banian by his right hand, kept them in the left hand and by counting them has handed over to the accused/appellant who accepted them by his right hand. The appellant kept the currency notes in the left pocket of his shirt. After that Rupkumar (P. W. 4) gave an agreed signal. In the mean time, the appellant had gone to the betal shop which was by the side of the hotel. C. P. I. Pund (P. W. 6) along with the raiding party approached the appellant and asked the appellant whether he has accepted the amount of Rs. 50/- from the complainant. The appellant admitted that he had accepted the amount of Rs. 50/ -. Thereupon the procedure regarding identification of the notes, whether they were the same which were given to the complainant and accepted by the appellant was gone through and necessary Panchanama was made. After the Panchanama C. P. I. Pund and others along with the appellant went to the office of the appellant at Deulghat and seized the register of 7/12 extract from the appellant. After that C. P. I. Pund (P. W. 6) lodged a complaint against the appellant. The investigation was then completed and after obtaining the necessary sanction, the appellant came to be charged for the offences mentioned above.