MAHADEO BAPURAO WADASKAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28th of March, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 1 of 1995, whereby appellant/accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/ -, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for three months. Appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) IN brief, it is the case of prosecution that PW 1 Rajesh Bongirwar, complainant, is an agriculturist residing at village Kothari, Distt. Chandrapur and for the purpose of agricultural work he had engaged two servants namely Baban Sukharam Longagde and Ashok Sakharam Diwate on payment of monthly wages of Rs. 460/ -. The appellant was working as a Minimum Wages Inspector. On 29th of July, 1993 the appellant visited complainant's village and enquired about muster and wages paid to the servants deployed by him. Again on 24th of August, 1993 appellant visited complainant's village and prepared inspection note in respect of wages of complainant's servants. Thereafter appellant issued notices to the complainant on 20th September, 1993, 18th of October, 1993 and 2nd of October, 1993 calling upon the complainant to produce certain documents which he failed to produce. On 26th of November, 1993 complainant received notice from the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner signed by the appellant calling upon complainant to remain present before him on 1st of December, 1993. Accordingly, complainant remained present and produced muster and wages register of his agricultural servants. On perusal of same appellant informed complainant that he has not maintained the register as required and that for this reason he was to forward adverse report against complainant to his Superior Officer to lodge case against him. Complainant therefore requested appellant to not to send any such report and therefore it is the case of prosecution that for not sending adverse report appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 500/ -from the complainant directing him to pay the same on that day at 3 p.m. As complainant was not interested to pay the bribe amount he visited to the office of Anti -corruption Bureau at Chandrapur and lodged his report at Exh. 17.

(3.) THEREAFTER phenolphthalein powder was applied to said currency notes and they were kept in the shirt pocket of complainant. PW 2 Arun was instructed to remain with complainant and to observe conversation whatsoever may take place between appellant and complainant. Complainant was also instructed to give signal by removing his spectacles with his left hand on making payment of bribe to the appellant only on demand. Pre -trap panchanama of above facts was drawn vide Exh. 25 in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur between 11.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m.