VINAYAK MAHADEORAO BHOYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT No. 1 Vinayak Mahadeorao Bhoyar has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 and appellant No. 2 Chirkut Chaituji Dhurve has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Appellant No. 1 Vinayak Bhoyar was working as Forest Guard and appellant No. 2 is his friend. Complainant Ishwar Pawar was resident of village Takali. He was allegedly involved in storing teak wood logs. It is alleged that appellant No. 1 had demanded Rs. 100/ - from said Ishwar Pawar for not prosecuting him. It is alleged that the said amount of Rs. 100/ - was demanded on 20th March, 1991. After 2 -3 days, the complainant was called by appellant No. 1 at the house of Sudhakar Bandbail and had again demanded the amount in presence of Sudhakar Bandbail. The complainant did not want to pay the amount and therefore, he lodged report with Anti Corruption Bureau. The trap was laid to apprehend appellant No. 1. However, appellant No. 1 at the time of alleged acceptance of bribe amount had directed the complainant to hand over the said amount to appellant No. 2 which was accepted by the appellant No. 2. Immediately thereafter officers of Anti Corruption Bureau apprehended appellant No. 2, seized the bribe amount and prepared panchnama in presence of two panchas.

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that one of the panch witnesses viz. Santosh Deshmukh was with the complainant at the time of demand and acceptance of amount by appellant No. 2.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed charge under Section 7 and 13(1)(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against appellant No. 1 and under Section 12 of the said Act against appellant No. 2. However, at the end of trial appellant No. 1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 only, as the acceptance of bribe amount by appellant No. 1 could not be established. Appellant No. 2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act. It is this judgment and order of the trial Court which is challenged in the present appeal.