STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAKANT REVANSIDHA MATHAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Phad, learned APP for Appellant ' State of Maharashtra and Mr. Purwant, learned Advocate for Respondent.

(2.) This is an appeal against acquittal challenging the judgment of acquittal dtd. 27/5/2003 of indicting, convicting and sentencing the Accused for having committed an offence punishable under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1) (b) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Appellant shall be referred to as Accused for convenience.

(3.) Briefly stated, Accused was working as a Junior Engineer attached to the MSEB, Yashwant Nagar, Sub-Station, Solapur. In January 1999, Complainant wanted to start a flour mill in the name of his wife and approached MSEB and submitted application in the prescribed form for seeking electricity connection. He met Accused, who was a Junior Engineer in MSEB office and gave details of the length and breadth of the premises, so as to ascertain the details of charges for the electricity connection to be provided by MSEB. Considering the dimensions of his premises, it is prosecution case that Accused informed Complainant that he would have to deposit an amount of Rs.7,000.00 for the same. It is the prosecution case that the Accused informed Complainant that if he wanted the deposit amount to be reduced, then he would have to show a reduced area of his premises so that he would be advise a lower quotation. Thereafter Complainant deposited initial amount of Rs.3,500.00 for the electricity connection to his shed. It was Complainant's desire that electricity connection be provided before 'Gudipadva day' on 18/3/1999. The evidence on record clearly states that as on 18/3/1999 and 19/3/1999, the electrical work for providing electricity connection was indeed carried out on the premises of Complainant, but it was not completed. Record shows that immediately before 'Gudipadva' the Complainant met the Accused in his office, when it is alleged that the Accused made a demand of Rs.1,000.00 for providing the electricity connection. Further, it is prosecution case also that Complainant met Accused on 16/3/1999, on which date Accused once again made a demand of Rs.500.00 for providing the electricity connection. This is the substantive case of the prosecution based on which the Complainant approached the ACB and on 19/3/1999. A trap was laid and Accused was apprehended leading to filing of the Complaint.