SHEIKH ISMAIL SHEIKH KALU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17/10/2001 in Special Case No. 23/1994 passed by the Special Judge, Khamgaon by which appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") and is awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this criminal appeal can be stated briefly as under:

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that during the above period, accused was working as Naib Tahsildar at Sangrampur and the case initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant was before him. On 5/5/1993 the complainant attended the office of the accused when evidence of two witnesses of complainant was recorded and thereafter accused after calling complainant inside his chamber, informed him that he would impose fine upon him and would also inform his Department about pendency of the said proceedings against him, which were initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by Shrikrushna Umbarkar, upon which complainant requested the accused not to impose fine and not to inform his Department about pendency of such case when accused is alleged to have demanded bribe of Rs. 1500/- for not imposing fine and for not informing complainant's Department. The complainant paid Rs. 500/- on the same day and further dates were given for hearing. It is the case of the prosecution that on all such dates, accused was insisting complainant for making payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- and on complainant's failure to comply with the same, accused was threatening him to impose fine and to inform his Department about the case.

(3.) On 3/7/1993 when the matter was fixed for hearing, the accused again renewed his threats as above and warned the complainant to make payment of Rs. 1000/- on or before 7/7/1993 to which complainant agreed to make payment of the said amount within two days and since complainant was not willing to make payment, he visited the Office of Anti Corruption Bureau at Buldhana and lodged his report (Exh. 17) on 6/7/1993 at 10 A.M.