KISHAN KHASHAPA GOGAWALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this case, who at the relevant time was working as Talathi, Saja Urali Devachi, is alleged to have demanded Rs. 100/- as a bribe from the complainant, Bhairu Shripati Holkar, and received the same on 29-8-1986. The prosecution alleges that Bhairu had complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau Authorities, who arranged for a trap. According to the prosecution the complainant, Bhairu, along with the Panchas met the accused in the office on 29-8-1986. The reason for the demand as set out by the complainant is that he had purchased two lands in a connection with which there was an enquiry under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Furthermore, he contends that he had remained absent on two occasions and that the Talathi had served a notice on him and warned him that if did not remain present in the enquiry that his lands will be forfeited to the Government. He states that having been so pressurised, the accused told him that if he (Bhairu) paid Rs. 100/- that everything would go well for him. According to him, therefore, the demand constituted a bribe and he went to the A. C. B. Authorities in order to ensure that action was taken in respect of such a corrupt act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complaint, the complainant Bhairu and the Panch Lamb (P. W. 4) went to the Talathis office and met him. The accused is alleged to have taken down two statements of the complainant, which is a matter of record, and after some time he is supposed to have gone out of the office along with a bag containing his papers and he asked the complainant to follow him. When he went to his motorcycle, he is alleged to have asked the complainant as to what happened about the other matter and the complainant told him that he had brought the money which he took out and gave to the accused counted it and put it into his trouser pocket. Thereupon the complainant raised his cap as a signal and the raiding party immediately apprehended the accused. The currency notes in question, which consisted of two notes of Rs. 20/- and six notes of Rs. 10/- each, had been treated with anthracene powder and on an examination a bluish colour was noted on the hands of the accused as also on the entrance of his trouser pocket and on the eight notes as also on another note of Rs. 100/- which was also found in the same pocket. The traces of the bluish tinge were also found on his hand and his shirt pocket where he kept the treated notes. The accused was placed under arrest and on completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the learned Special Judge, Pune. The learned trial Judge convicted the accused under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the latter charge, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence for the charge under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code was awarded. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed. The appeal is of the year 1991. Shri Chitnis pointed out that, as is the case with all public servants, the accused was immediately placed under suspension and he was undergoing hardship for the last eight years. Consequently, in keeping with the liberty granted at the stage of admission, he has requested that the appeal be disposed of on a priority basis. This application, to my mind, is justified.

(3.) THE defence in this case is not unusual, but, to my mind, is of some significance. The accused, as pointed out by me, was a revenue officer, namely, a Talathi. It has come on record, strangely enough through no other than Vijay Dedge (P. W. 1) and Vasant Patil (P. W. 2) themselves, that at the relevant time the Government had set a target of Rs. 75,00,00,000/- for Pune District as far as National Small Savings were concerned. There is no harm in setting ambitious targets, but the prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that the Collector and the Prant Officer issued specific circulars to their subordinates, such as the present accused, to ensure that the maximum collections were made by them under this head. This fact is borne out by the fact that the accused himself, in keeping with these directions had been collecting the amounts under this head and1 he has also produced his receipt book and other documents in order to establish this fact. It was not the function of the revenue officers to collect National Small Savings Amounts which they could have done on their own if they so desired de hors their work functions, but in the present instance we find a situation whereby their own superior officers had not only set almost impossible target but had directed them to achieve these targets. It is small consolation that they tried to get over this unhappy and improper practice by stating that a small prize would be given to the person who achieved the highest collection. It was sought to be contended that the entire exercise was a voluntary one and if the officers did well that they would get a small prize for the same. The real fact is that the revenue officers were pressurised into making these collections, principally, because of the abnormally high targets that the Government had set. One needs to take cognizance of the fact that the only persons from whom they could really make collections effectively or to put it more bluntly the only victims of the target they could unwillingly extort money from would be those with whom they had dealings. Undoubtedly, the persons who came to them for whatever work were vulnerable and would be obliged to join the scheme and open the account virtually under duress because they knew what the consequences would be if this was not done. It is the case of the accused that in this background he had asked the complainant, Bhairu, to deposit Rs. 100/- in the Small Savings Scheme, that Bhairu agreed and brought the money and that it had nothing to do with the official function of the accused. Vijay Dedge (P. W. 1) and Vasant patil (P. W. 2) have also admitted one significant fact, namely, that the Accused was in no way connected with the decision in the enquiry and that his function was limited to the service of the notice. The learned trial Judge has, however, rejected this defence principally on the ground that the complainant as also the Panch Lamb have both denied that there was any connection between the Small Savings Scheme and the demand for the money. Shri Chitnis has, however, submitted that having regard to the material on record that the accused has discharged the burden of refuting the presumption that arises in respect of the receipt of the amount of Rs. 100/ -.