NANDLAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2001 passed by the Special Judge, Gondia in Special Case No. 1/1997 by which the appellant /accused was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth abbreviated to "Act of 1988") and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, R.I. for two months and was further convicted for offence punishable u/s 13 (1)(d) of the Act of 1988 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/ -, in default, further R.I. for six months, which were directed to be run concurrently, the present Appeal was filed by the appellant/original accused.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated it is the case of the prosecution that on 25.8.1995 complainant -Gunilal along with Girdhari, Deogir, Tukangir, Deochand and Shiolal were playing cards in the chhapri of Lattu Bhalavi at village Kawadi, in the wake of "pola" festival. The appellant/accused -Nandlal Kapgate, P.olice Head Constable (Buckle No. 1014) with his police party nabbed them. Gunilal managed to escape from the spot and hid himself in the house of his brother Tanulal. Crime No. 27/1995 under Section 12 -A of the Prevention of Gambling Act against Gunialal and others were registered. On 26.8.1995 at about 10.00 a.m. P.C, Hemne and P.C. Salame visited the house of Tanulal to track Gunilal and they asked Tanulal to produce him. On 21.08.1995 Tanulal went to outpost Sakritola where P.H.C. Nandlal Kapgate (appellant) was present along with other constables. PHC Nandlal demanded Rs. 200/ - for releasing Gunilal after his production. Tanulal was working as a Mustering Clerk in Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra, did not want to pay him the amount and went to Anti Corruption Bureau on 8.9.1995. Gunilal lodged the complaint at Exh.25; whereas Tanulal lodged complaint at Exh. 28, on 8.9.1995 and 12.9.1995 respectively. Thereafter Police Inspector Sunil Jaiswal took steps to arrange the trap. The trap was successful. Charge -sheet was filed after investigation was completed. The trial was held. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellant/accused as stated in paragraph no. 1 above. Hence this Appeal.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the learned trial Judge has discussed the entire evidence in details with precision and there is hardly scope to hold that he had made an error in appreciation of the evidence and law that is applicable. The learned A.P.P., therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is legal, correct and proper and deserves to be confirmed.