RAMRAO JIJARAM GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convict for offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] is hereby challenging the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 26/10/2004 passed by learned Special Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed in Special Case (A.C.) No. 1/2002.

(2.) In brief, case of prosecution is that, accused was a Talathi. Brother of complainant-PW1 Tanaji had tendered application with Tahsil authorities objecting to the entry of name of one Ramrao Jadhav in the backdrop of some transaction with Chabubai of which civil dispute was pending. According to the prosecution, when complainant, i.e. brother of Shivaji, approached Talathi, he agreed not to enter name of said Ramrao in view of the order of Civil Court, but to refrain from doing so, he demanded Rs.5,000.00. When complainant expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, after negotiations, accused brought down the figure to Rs.2,500.00 and asked complainant to pay the same on 27/12/2001. On 26/12/2001, complainant approached Anti-Corruption Bureau [ACB] authorities and lodged complaint Exhibit 18, after which ACB authorities summoned panchas, complaint was verified, trap was planned and explained to complainant and pancha, demonstration of application of tainted currency was given to them and thereafter complainant and pancha went to Talathi office.

(3.) Questioning the legality and maintainability of the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is no dispute that accused was Talathi. There is also no dispute that complainant had approached Talathi at Tahsil office. However, he disputes demand raised by accused. According to him, accused had demanded land revenue arrears and even specific defence to that extent is raised. He pointed out that even alleged demand is on 25/12/2001, but trap is laid on 27/12/2001 and therefore, it is deliberate attempt. Learned counsel submitted that here, very essential aspect of demand as bribe has not been proved. According to him, in support of the above defence, accused has adduced evidence of DW1 and DW2 and as such, he has probabilized his defence. Further, such defence has still not been taken into consideration by learned trial Judge. He pointed out that in fact, there is no motive as complainant himself has admitted receipt of revenue document i.e. 7x12 extract etc. Therefore, there is no question of bribe being asked for doing or not doing any work. However, learned trial court, according to him, has not considered and appreciated the case in its correct perspective and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeal.