MOHAMMAD ABDUL SALIM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convict for offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] is hereby assailing the judgment and order passed by Special Judge, Parbhani dtd. 28/2/2005 in Special Case No. 8 of 2002.

(2.) PW2 Shivaji had approached the appellant-convict on 19/10/2001 with a registered sale deed requesting convict, a Talathi, to give effect to the transaction by carrying out mutation entry. But accused did not certify it. Again on 31/12/2001 PW2 approached accused with similar request to carry out and certify mutation i.e. while accused was at Yeldari and that time accused demanded amount Rs.800.00 for certification of mutation in the name of his brother Rajaram. Finally, after negotiations accused reduced the amount to Rs.400.00. On the same day, complainant paid Rs.150.00 to the accused and assured to repay the remaining amount of Rs.250.00on 9/1/2002. Thereafter PW2 approached Anti Corruption Bureau [ACB], Parbhani and filed complaint which was entertained and investigated by PW4 after deploying PW3 Chandrakant as a pancha and accordingly, pre-trap panchanama was drawn and accused was approached by complainant and shadow pancha as decided and accused was apprehended while accepting amount and hence he was chargesheeted and tried by the court of Special Judge, Parbhani, who on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, after trial, held charges proved and recorded conviction, which is now assailed before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no cogent, reliable and convincing evidence. He pointed out that demand and acceptance is not proved. He took this Court through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also answers given by them in cross and submitted that evidence is not convincing. He submitted that prosecution witness PW1, a Bank Official, has not supported prosecution. That, learned trial court has only considered evidence of pancha PW3 Chandrakant. Sanction is also without proper application of mind and is rather accorded in a mechanical way i.e. without verifying documents. According to him, mutation entry was already sanctioned and therefore there was no question of demand of money for effecting any mutation entry. He pointed out that ACB authority has forcibly obtained signature on the statement of accused. As essential ingredients for attracting none of the above offences were available, conviction was not warranted, however learned trial court has straightway accepted the case of prosecution and has recorded guilt and he prays to set aside the same.