KASHINATH BALIRAMJI JIVANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four appeals assail the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption act, Nagpur, in Special Case No. 6/88, thereby convicting the accused nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 for the offence punishable under Section 120 (b) of I. P. C. and also convicting the accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 381 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months, and also convicting the accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 409 read with section 34 of I. P. C. and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer six months Rigorous Imprisonment, and also convicting the accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 465, 471, 477-A read with section 34 of I. P. C. and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one year each on each count and to pay a fine of rs. 100/- each on each count, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months more and convicting the accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 5 (1) (c) read with Section 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default to suffer three months Rigorous Imprisonment, and convicting the accused nos. 5 and 6 for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Vide the said judgment, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has also acquitted the accused no. 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 381, 409, 468, 465, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and for the offences punishable under Section 5 (1) (c) read with Section 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. The accused nos. 4, 7 and 8 are also acquitted of the offences punishable under section 120 (B), 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 229 of 1996 has been filed by the original accused nos. 1 and 2. Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 1996 has been filed by the accused no. 6. Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1996 has been filed by the accused no. 5, and Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1997 has been filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8. However, this Court had admitted the said appeal against the accused nos. 3 and 4 only.

(3.) THE prosecution story in brief is that at the relevant time, the accused no. 3 was working as the Sub Divisional Officer (Stores and Colony establishment, Sub Division IV, Pench Hydro Electric Project), Totladoh, district Nagpur. The accused no. 1 was working as Assistant Engineer in-Charge of Steel-Yard, the accused no. 2 was working as Store Keeper i. e. Store Attendant in Steelyard. Accused No. 4 is a contractor whose contract work was going on at Totladoh at the relevant time. Accused no. 5 is said to be a relative of accused no. 4 who was plying the jeep of the accused no. 4. The accused no. 6 is said to be the owner of the Truck bearing No. MTG 8990, which is used in the crime Accused no. 8 was the driver of the truck in question. Accused no. 7 is the son of one Diwansingh gill under whose control the Truck bearing No. MGH 7793 was and accused no. 9 Dhaniram was the Driver of the said Truck.