LAWS(BOM)-2014-6-139

BALKRISHNA LAKSHMI HAND DIDWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 23, 2014
Balkrishna s/o. Lakshmi hand Didwani Appellant
V/S
State of Maharashtra through A. C. B. Akola Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 1st of June, 2002 in Special Case No. 6 of 1992 convicting appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for four months and for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer R.I. for four months. Prosecution case can briefly be stated as follows-

(2.) According to prosecution, as complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged report with Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Akola vide Exh. 61. Accordingly, the authorities of A.C.B., Akola arranged for two panch witnesses being PW 2 Sudhakar Khot and one Laxman Bhagat and then gave demonstration to complainant and panchas of effect of phenolphthalein powder with solution of Sodium Carbonate, by which they learnt that when said powder comes in contact with above stated solution, it changes its colour to violate. On applying Phenolphthalein powder to the bribe amount of Rs. 4000/-, necessary instructions were given to complainant as well as to PW 2 Sudhakar to accompany the complainant and to Laxman Bhagat to accompany the raiding team and trap came to be laid at the shop of complainant. Before proceeding to the spot, pre-trap panchanama came to be prepared (Exh. 64).

(3.) According to the prosecution, on reaching to his shop, complainant Mukesh sat on the counter while PW 2 Sudhakar was in shop at a distance of 2 to 3 ft. from the complainant, watching the clothes. About half an hour thereafter, the appellant arrived in the shop and told complainant that his work was over and he should give him Rs. 4000/-, as agreed, saying that he would manage other things and the complainant should not worry. Upon which, complainant took out Rs. 4000/- from his right side pant pocket by his right hand and gave it to the appellant which he accepted and on counting by both of his hands, kept in his left side shirt pocket. On complainant's giving the proposed signal, raiding team officials arrived in the shop and apprehended the appellant. PW 6 Dashrat Gawande, P.I., dipped the fingers of appellant in the solution of sodium Carbonate which turned into violate colour. The amount of Rs. 4000/- was recovered from the shirt pocket of appellant. Similarly, when complainant's fingers were treated with sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned in to violate colour. Panchanama of these facts was done vide Exh. 164.