MOHD. IRFANUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment and Order dtd. 6/1/2004, passed by the Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No.35/1999, convicting the present appellant for offence under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) is assailed in the present appeal.

(2.) The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is that complainant - Ganesh Bhagat was in need of Medical Certificate. Therefore, he approached District Tuberculosis Hospital (T.B. Hospital). He approached Dr. Misal, who directed him to accused, who was working as a Clerk for issuing required certificate. As illegal gratification was demanded, for same Complainant approached A.C.B. and lodged report, on the basis of which ACB Authorities planned and arranged trap. Complainant was accompanied by panch. Both the complainant and panch approached accused in the Hospital, accused demanded money for issuing certificate, complainant handed over the cash and it was accepted by the accused. Predetermined signal was relayed and accused was apprehended, complaint was lodged, which was investigated and finally he was charge-sheeted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that here is a classic case, wherein in spite of very complainant not supporting prosecution, case of prosecution has been accepted on the testimony of panch witness and other witnesses like Sanctioning Authority and Investigating Officer, who are interested witnesses. He further submitted that the sine qua non for attracting the charges i.e. demand and acceptance is not proved, as required by law. That, main accused, who had allegedly demanded illegal gratification is not charge-sheeted and tried for the best reasons known to the Investigating Agency. According to learned counsel, present appellant is mere subordinate staff, who was not authorized to issue any certificate. He pointed out that, in fact, required certificate is issued by specially constituted board comprising of several responsible officers. Therefore, the appellant ought not to have held guilty for the above charges. That, complaint was specifically against Dr. Misal, but he was spared. Therefore, present appellant, who is made a scapegoat, ought not to have been charge-sheeted and tried. According to him, learned trial judge has misconstrued role of appellant and has not correctly appreciated evidence as required and, hence, he seeks interference.