SUBHASH AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 04th October, 2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Pandharkawada [Kelapur], in Special [ACB] Case No. 4 of 2006, convicting and sentencing the : -

(2.) The prosecution case was that the complainant Shriram Ramdas Bodhe, resident of Purad [Nerad], Tq. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal, was residing with his father and the land admeasuring 57 R owned by Rajeshwar Eknath There, which was adjacent to their field was for sale and accordingly an agreement was executed on 18th January, 2006. On 3rd June, 2006, the complainant Shriram with his father went to the Office of Sub -Registrar, Wani, and met the appellant no. 1 -Sub -Registrar -Subhash Shankar Giri and made enquiry as to the expenses required for completing the sale -deed when the Accused No. 1 told him that as per valuation, it was Rs. 60,000/ - and stamps of Rs. 2400/ - would be required plus registration charges of Rs. 900/ - and Rs. 5,000/ - extra for him. When confronted, the accused Giri told him that he would increase the valuation of the property if Rs. 5,000/ - were not paid and in that case more stamp duty would be attracted. On 5th June, 2006, the complainant Shriram lodged a report with the Anticorruption Bureau, Yavatmal, and upon receipt thereof, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti -corruption Bureau, reduced the complaint into writing and issued a letter for getting two Panch witnesses. Panch witnesses Mahesh Dattani and Baliram Patke arrived at his office. On the next day, the process was undertaken. After following a regular procedure and applying anthracene powder on both the sides of the currency notes of Rs. 5,000/ -, the notes were kept in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant Shriram. Thereafter, the party proceeded towards the Office of Sub -Registrar, Wani, and reached there at about 11.30 a.m. and the raiding staff followed the complainant. The complainant went to the office of Sub -Registrar and showed all papers to accused Giri who told him to bring Namuna 8 -A and affidavit on 8th June, 2006 for executing a sale -deed, since for want of those documents sale -deed could not be registered on 6th June, 2006.

(3.) Accordingly, again the procedure was completed on 8th June, 2006 and all of them went to the Office of Sub -Registrar, Wani, along with the Panch witnesses. The Petition Writer along with the complainant, his father and the witnesses gave the documents to the accused Giri who annexed the documents, namely Namuna -8 -A and affidavit to the sale -deed and then sent the party for snapping photographs in the computer Sec. located in the same room. At that time, the accused Giri asked the complainant as to whether he had brought Rs. 5,000/ - and asked him to pay the same. Thereafter, the father of the complainant gave the amount of Rs. 1020/ - towards registration fee to the person sitting behind the accused Giri, who was a Peon who kept the said amount of Rs. 1020/ - in the cash box. The complainant Shriram then gave an amount of Rs. 5,000/ - to the accused No. 2 -Vijay Pendam as per the say of the appellant no. 1 -Giri. The appellant no. 2 -Vijay Pendam counted the said notes with both of his hands and confirmed amount of Rs. 5,000/ - having been received by him and kept it on the cash box. Thereafter, the complainant came out of the office and gave a signal. The raiding party entered the office and caught hold of appellant no. 2 -Vijay and the numbers of the notes were tallied. The hands of appellant no. 2 were examined under ultra violate lamp which were found glittering. Thereafter, the cash was examined which was also found glittering. The Deputy Supdt., of Police also found an amount of Rs. 12640 -00 in excess in the cash box, for which he did not receive any satisfactory explanation. He then seized that amount. Thereafter the spot map, Panchanama etc., were prepared and a report was lodged with Wani Police Station, which registered an offence vide Crime No. 3104/06. He then completed the investigations by recording statements of witnesses and filed a charge -sheet. The charge under Ss. 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) and Sec. 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against both the appellants. Thereafter, the prosecution tendered its evidence. The defence was of total denial. The learned Trial Judge thereafter convicted both the appellants. Hence this appeal.