ABDUL HAMID ISMAIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and the Companion Appeal No. 516 of 1985 have been preferred by the same appellant. At the relevant time, the appellant was a police constable in the office of the Police Commissioner at Pune. The prosecution had alleged that he offered to assist persons who are interested in joining the police department and that he had accepted certain amounts of money for rendering such assistance which would bring him within the ambit of a corruption charge. Apart from this, by virtue of the fact that such false assurances were made, that certain intimation letters were issued, etc. , the prosecution had also invoked sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 163 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been awarded R. I. for one year and fine of Rs. 100/- in default R. I. for two months under the first head; R. I. for six months and fine of Rs. 50/- in default R. I. for one month on counts 3, 4 and 5 and fine of Rs. 50/- in default R. I. for one month on count No. 6.

(2.) AS indicated by me earlier, the prosecution case against the accused is essentially that he had misused his position while attached to the office of the Police Commissionerate at Pune and that he had obtained a sum of Rs. 600/- from Badal Ganpat More, by cheating him and getting him to believe that a forged document viz. , an interview/appointment call for the post of police constable would be received by him. The matter came to be reported to the authorities who investigated into the same and on checking up with the records, it appeared that the accused was responsible for the commission of the offences. The accused was thereupon placed under arrest, the investigation was completed and a complaint filed before the learned Special Judge at Pune since it involved a corruption charge.

(3.) I need to mention that in the course of the investigation, it was also disclosed that there were certain other incidents which invited similar action for which purpose, the Anti-Corruption authorities registered a separate offence and the accused was charge-sheeted in respect of those charges. That case also ended in a conviction and is covered by Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 1985 which is the companion appeal to the present one. It is against these two convictions and set of sentences that the two appeals are directed.