PANDHARINATH SHELKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge for Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 24 of 1989. By the said judgment and order dated 15th October, 1993, the trial Court was pleased to convict the appellant under section 7 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 and he was sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to undergo R. I. for one month. He was also convicted under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ -. The accused no. 2 was acquitted of the offence with which he was charged.

(2.) Prosecution's case is that, at the relevant time, appellant accused No. 1 who was at that time a Rationing Officer was in charge of the Rationing office, Kurla and it is alleged that he demanded bribe of Rs. 400/- as monthly instalment on 28-9-1988 from the complainant who owned the rationing shop. Prosecution's case is that the accused No. 2 who was working as Assistant Rationing Officer made repeated demands for the payment of the said amount to accused No. 1 and, therefore, it was alleged that he had abetted the said offence. Prosecution case is that the accused were caught red-handed. The statements of witnesses were recorded and charge was framed against the accused and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the trial Court. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the said judgment and order of the trial Court.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has not proved that the appellant had demanded bribe of Rs. 400/- as monthly instalment on 28-9-1988. It is further submit- ted that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution that the appellant demanded and accepted the said amount of Rs. 400/- on 6-10-1988. It is submitted that there is no evidence except that of the complainant P. W. 1 regarding the alleged demand which was made on 28-9-1988 and it is further submitted that the evidence of P. W. 1 itself is full of contradictions. It is further submitted that there is delay in filing the complaint. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that since version of demand itself has not been established by the prosecution, the entire foundation of the prosecution falls to the ground and the subsequent version of acceptance of money towards illegal gratification also becomes doubtful. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon number of judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court on this point.