AHMED HUSSEIN SHAIKH NABI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the order dated 16. 12. 1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nanded in Special Case no. 2 of 1989 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under s. 161 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (PC Act) and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under S. 161 of IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months under S. 5 (l) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of PC Act.

(2.) THE appellant was serving as Avval Karkun in the Tahsil Officer nanded in the year 1988. Complainant Pradip was intending to convert the land belonging to his grand mother Laxmibai and sister Vimalabai bearing old Survey No. 43 and gut no. 129 and 138 from village Pardi. Accordingly, he had filled application before the Tahsil Office, Nanded for seeking permission as such. As a requisite therefor, a certificate was required from the concerned authority that the said land is not an Inam land, since the 7/12 extract showed that in other rights column, names of mahadya and Marshay were shown as tenants. Somewhere in February 1988, complainant Pradip came to know that there was a provisional declaration in favour of these two tenants but the Tahsildar by his order dated 6. 8. 1958 has cancelled the said provisional declaration. Complainant, therefore, filed an application on 17. 2. 1988 for certified copy of the said order. He approached the concerned record office from tahsil Office, Nanded. Record Section in-charge of Tahsil Office informed that the said order is not traceable in the record room, however, the same may be possibly with the Land Reforms Section or Tahsil Office and the appellant deals with the said section. Complainant, accordingly approached the appellant and requested to trace the said order. Appellant initially demanded Rs. 50/- to trace the order and on 18. 2. 1988, the appellant succeeded in securing the said record by which the provisional declaration of the aforesaid two tenants was cancelled by the tenancy authorities. The complainant therefore, requested the appellant to give certificate to that effect, which is required for conversion of agricultural land into non agricultural land and the appellant, therefore, expressed that if the complainant pays Rs. 300/- he will issue necessary certificate. Some negotiations took place and ultimately it was agreed to pay Rs. 250/-to the appellant for the said work. Rs. 100/- were paid on 19. 2. 1988, while the remaining amount was to be paid after 3-4 days at the time of handing over the certificate in favour of the complainant.

(3.) ON 24. 2. 1988, complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau. The Deputy Superintendent of Anti Corruption Bureau recorded the complaint of Pradip, called two panchas and they were appraised about the grievance of the complainant. Both complainant and panchas were introduced to each others. Pre-trap panachanama was prepared. However, on 24. 2. 1988, though trap was laid since the requisite certificate was not ready, the appellant asked the complainant to come on the next day i. e. on 25. 2. 1988.