MADHUKAR MATU BHALEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant in this case has assailed his conviction. on corruption charges both u/s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5 (1) (d) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whereunder a sentence of one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default R. I. for three months have been awarded on each count.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution alleges that the accused was working as a Gram Sevak at Group Gram Panchayat of Kamatghar in Bhiwandi Taluka. On 29-3-1982, one Shamsuddin Kamaluddin Siddiqui had made an application to the Sarpanch requesting to transfer the house situated at Gaurr Pada in his name and to allot a number to the house and to issue house tax receipt in his name. The complainant is an illiterate person and had in fact got the work of preparing the application etc. , done through the accused. It is alleged that the accused told him that he would have to spend some amount for his work. On 13/04/1982, when the complainant enquired whether his work was done, the accused told him that he will have to spend Rs. 150/- for that work. After some bargaining, the amount was reduced to Rs. 80/ -. What needs to be pointed out is that an amount of Rs. 14/ - was payable as and by way of taxes which the accused was required to recover from the complainant. It appears from the record that the amount of Rs. 80/- was to be inclusive of this amount of Rs. 14/ -. As I shall presently point out, it is this factor that has created an insurmountable difficulty in the way of the prosecution.

(3.) THE complainant went to the Anti-corruption authorities who laid a trap. Panch Pradip Joshi was asked to accompany the complainant who was given marked currency notes of Rs. 50/-, Rs. 20/- and Rs. 10/ -. Admittedly, they met the accused on 13-4-1982 at his office and thereafter proceeded to a tea-stall. Pursuant to enquiries from the accused as to whether he has brought the money, the complainant is alleged to have passed the amount to him. There is some ambiguity in the record with regard to whether the amount in question was accepted by the accused and put in his shirt pocket or not, because admittedly, when the P. S. I. pursuant to the signal from the complainant, raided the place, the money was found on the table. The witnesses contend that realising that something was wrong, the accused who had put the amount into his shirt pocket once again took it out and placed it on the table. In support of this fact, it is pointed out that anthracene powder was found not only on the hands of the accused but also on his spectacles and that traces were found near his shirt pocket, above all, on another currency note which was inside his pocket. The prosecution alleges that the accused himself had accepted the money, put it in his pocket and had thereafter taken it out when he suspected that he would be found in possession of that amount. The learned Special Judge accepted this evidence and convicted the accused. It is against this conviction that the present appeal has been filed.