STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHAMMAD AMJAD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard extensively. In Special Case (ACB) No. 3/1990, the learned Special Judge (ACB), Nanded on 30th July, 2001, acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The State has challenged the same. Leave was granted on 14th January, 2004. The appeal was admitted. The prosecution case proceeds on the accusations that the respondent/accused, a Surveyor, a public servant, made illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- for carrying measurement of property belonging to the complainant - Keshav. The amount was settled at Rs. 600/-. The accused allegedly accepted the amount.

(2.) The matter has a piquant story. In the first round of litigation on the same accusations, PW No. 1, the complainant -Keshav, supported the prosecution. The entire evidence was recorded and matter was kept for judgment. However, the Judgment could not be delivered, as the learned Judge was transferred. The Judgment was in a sealed condition. It was opened by the subsequent Judge. An application, Exhibit-58 was moved by the accused on 14.11.1994. The said order was challenged in revision before this Court. The revision was dismissed for want of prosecution. Owing to orders of de novo trial, prosecution has again examined PW No. 1 -Keshav Zambre at Exhibit-70. He changed track of his evidence and did not support prosecution. According to him, his allegations were against D.I.L.R. Sardaroddin. Accused Amjad Ali never demanded or accepted bribe money from him. Earlier evidence was recorded on 17th August, 1993 while the later evidence was recorded by the then learned Civil Judge (Shri Bagade). Thus, it revealed that the complainant has given incorrect factual details on two occasions, contradicting each other. The learned Judge consequently, noted that out of two evidence, one is certainly false. The learned Judge, has directed notices to be issued for giving false evidence and acquitted the accused. The scanty character in the prosecution case, is demonstrated by evidence of PW 1, who did not support PW No. 2 -Ramchandra, the panch, who stood to the position. However, it is not demonstrated that the accused had indeed any official act to the complainant for causing measurement. The activities were to be carried by Sardaroddin and not by the accused. Consequently, the acquittal does not call for interference. Criminal Appeal dismissed.