DAMODHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 10/12.8.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 13/1994 by which appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant is also convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Briefly, it is the case of the prosecution that on 21/2/1994, accused was working as Maintenance Surveyor at Mul, District Chandrapur. Complainant Baburao had contacted accused prior to the said date with regard to mutation of his plot when the accused is alleged to have demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/-, which amount was negotiated to Rs. 600/- and was agreed to be paid by the complainant in two instalments of Rs. 300/- each. Prior to the said demand, complainant had already tendered his application for mutation. As the complainant was not interested in paying bribe, he lodged a report with Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur. On the basis of the said report, two panchas were summoned from the Office of M.S.R.T.C. The complainant as well as panchas were given demonstration about effect of sodium carbonate solution on phenolphthalein powder and were given necessary instructions. On completion of first panchanama, at around 4 p.m. on 21/2/1994, complainant, panchas and members of the raiding team visited the office of accused at Mul. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 2 Kailash, who was to act as first panch and to accompany the complainant, was instructed accordingly. On complainant visiting the accused in his office, the accused came to be apprehended as he was found to have demanded and accepted first instalment of bribe of Rs. 300/-. The amount was recovered from the office table of the accused. Panchanama of these facts was drawn on the spot. On the basis of the report lodged by the Investigating Officer, Crime No. 34/1994 was registered by P.W. 3 Dayaghan, Head Constable, which was further investigated by P.W. 8 Ashok Pawar, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau. On completion of investigation and on obtaining sanction from P.W. 5 Nazir Patel, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused.

(2.) Charges were framed vide Exh. 10 to which accused denied and claimed to be tried. His defence was of total denial. It is the specific case of the accused that the complainant on visiting his office on the day of incident, paid him money towards measurement charges. The learned Special Judge on considering the evidence, convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

(3.) Heard Shri Mahesh Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Udeshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for both the sides, I have scrutinized the evidence on record with their assistance.