M G THATTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, at the relevant time a sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Railway Protection Force of the Central Railway at Solapur along with the Assistant Sub-Inspector, original accused No. 2 and the appellant in the companion appeal, stands convicted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleges that the complainant, Maula Khaja and four other persons had obtained passes for taking away five bags of coal weighing 50 kgs. each from the Loco Shed at a concessional rate in their capacity as railway employees. It is alleged that these persons had taken the coal out of the main gate where R. P. F. Rakshak Waghmode was posted. He had checked the gate passes and the cash receipts and sometime after the hamals who had been engaged along with Maula Khaja were on their way to Maula Khajas residence, they were apprehended and brought back. The coal was weighed and found to be of 253 kgs. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sent for and, after checking the weight, they seized the material under a panchanama. It is alleged that two days thereafter accused No. 2 sent word to complainant Maula Khaja that they would have to register a case against him and that he would come into very serious trouble. An offer to help him was made provided he paid a sum of Rs. 500/ -. Accused No. 1 in the meanwhile, recorded statements of various persons. On 20-8-1979, i. e. , five days after the earlier incident of 15-8-1979, a meeting took place at the residence of accused No. 2, who instructed the complainant to come with Rs. 300/- in the evening of that day to the Police Station from where they would go to Shiv Shakti Sweet Home Hotel and the amount was to be paid to accused. No. 1. An assurance was held out to Maula Khaja that if he paid the money, he would be exonerated from the case.

(2.) IT is the case of Maula Khaja that he was begging of accused No. 2 not to make such high demand, that he pointed out his economic condition and the fact that he had to support the family which consisted of a wife and two children, but that the Police Officer had refused to relent. He, therefore, lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau and a trap was laid, Currency notes treated with anthracene powder were handed over to the complainant, Maula Khaja, and he was sent along with Panch Bavdhankar with specific instructions that the money was to be handed over only when it was demanded and the panch was also instructed that he should see and hear everything that transpires. The trap succeeded as was planned and the raiding party apprehended the two accused in the hotel. It is alleged that the currency notes in question were recovered from accused No. 1 and that traces of anthracene powder were found on the hands and clothing of accused No. 1 and that similar traces were found on one of the hands and on the cap of accused No. 2. There was a change of the Investigating Officer and after a rather laborious investigation, a complaint came to be filed and the accused were put on trial. The learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted both the accused. Under the first charge, they were awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months; and under the second charge, they were awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Substantive sentences were to run concurrently. It is against these convictions and sentences that the present set of appeals has been preferred.

(3.) THE two appellants stood trial together. The case against them is essentially common. Learned Counsel representing the appellant in the companion appeal has remained absent. Shri Thakur, learned Counsel who represents the appellant in the present appeal, has argued the appeal threadbare and, to my mind, since the same result would follow in the companion appeal, there is no necessity for me to separate that matter and keep it pending.