SUDHAKAR HARI JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and order of the special Judge, Nashik convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under sections 7 and 13 (i) (d) (ii) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, R. I. for one month.

(2.) THE said judgment and order is impugned on several grounds, inter alia that no anthracene power was applied to the currency notes which were alleged to be given to and received by the accused and therefore, the best evidence which would have conclusively proved the passing of the currency notes was not made available.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution is that during the period between 1-10-86 to 30-4-86, the accused-appellant was working as Supply Inspecting Officer in the Civil Supply Office at Igatpuri. The complaint came to be lodged against the accused on 23-3-87 with the Anti Corruption Office at Nashik alleging that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- by way of illegal gratification for releasing one tin of palm oil which was allegedly detained by the godown keeper of the Civil Supply Department at the instance of the accused. Since complainant refused to oblige, the appellant-accused warned P. W. 6 godown keeper not to make delivery of goods to the complainant and left the place. The complainant again requested P. W. 6 to deliver the goods according to the entries made in the Register, but P. W. 6 expressed his inability to deliver the goods on account of the warning given by the appellant-accused. Thereupon, the complainant filed a complaint before the Tahsildar complaining about the refusal of delivery of the goods to him. After obtaining the letter, exhibit 32, from the godown keeper, P. W. 6, stating his inability to deliver the. groceries to the complainant on account of specific instructions given to him by accused, the complainant again approached the accused and requested him to deliver the goods. However, the accused again repeated his demand of rs. 100/- as illegal consideration for release of the goods. Whereupon the complainant approached the Anti Corruption Office at Nashik and lodged the complaint. The complaint was recorded and the concerned investigating officer decided to lay a trap. A pre-trap panchanama was prepared after the necessary formalities for the trap were completed. The complainant was told to handover money to the accused only if demand was made. The complainant was asked to give a predetermined signal after the money was accepted by the accused. The complainant alongwith panchas went to the office of the accused and requested the accused to deliver the goods. At that time, the accused told the complainant that he had no work with him and that he had no concern with the complainant and left his office with three other persons who were sitting with him. They all went to the nearby hotel. The complainant and P. W. 2 followed them to the hotel. When they came out of the hotel, the complainant again requested the accused to make delivery of the goods. The accused again told him that he had nothing to do in the matter and that the complainant should go to the godown keeper and collect the goods. Upon the complainant insisting, the accused told the complainant that he should keep one tin of palm oil and accept delivery of the remaining goods. The accused asked one of the persons who was with him to go to the godown keeper and inform him that he should give delivery of the goods to the complainant as was directed. The complainant and ponchos thereafter again returned to the Anti corruption Bureau Office and informed P. I. Bankar of all that had transpired.