LAWS(BOM)-2024-2-72

MAHADEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 21, 2024
MAHADEO Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment an order dtd. 28/2/2002 passed by learned Additional Judge and Special Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed in Special Case No. 04/2000 is assailed by filing instant appeal by both accused, Mahadeo and Bhimrao, questioning their conviction for offence under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Sec. 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, respectively.

(2.) Complainant Chatrabhuj Chandanshiv owns agricultural land in survey no. 76 of Uttareshwar Pimpri, Taluka Kaij. He had dug a bore well in his land. Therefore, on 29/12/1999, he approached accused no.1 i.e. Mahadeo, a Talathi with a request to take corresponding entry of the bore well in the 7x12 extract of his land. Accused no.1 obtained his signature on a blank paper and demanded Rs.2,000.00 for reflecting the entry in 7x12 extract. On intervention of one Manik and Tukaram, after negotiations, amount was brought down to Rs.1,000.00and accused no.1 asked complainant to pay the amount. Complainant at that time was having Rs.550.00 only and he gave the said amount and assured to repay the remaining amount on entry being effected in the 7x12 extract. Thereafter, accused told him to approach him on Friday with remaining amount.

(3.) As complainant was not willing to pay, he approached Anti-Corruption Bureau [ACB] office on 30/12/1999 and gave complainant Exhibit 34. ACB authorities called panchas and verified the complainant. Complainant and pancha were explained the procedure of trap. Tainted currency was handed over to complainant to be paid on demand and pancha was directed to accompany complainant. On 31/12/1999 around 11.30 a.m., complainant and pancha reached the premises of Kaij Tahsil office. They approached accused, who met them there. Complainant made inquiry about his work, upon which accused asked complainant whether he has brought money. Complainant removed currency notes from his shirt pocket and accused asked complainant to pay the amount to the hotel owner i.e. accused no.2. Accused no.2 accepted the amount. Predetermined signal was given and raiding party apprehended both accused.