SHARAD MANGA TAYADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the convicted accused against the judgment dtd. 8/1/2018, passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Nanded in Special (ACB) Case No.7 of 2015, by which the appellant was convicted under Sec. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.") for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the PC Act") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00. In default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00. In default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of three months. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Grampanchayat, Umri Jahagir, District Nanded, resolved to construct a cement concrete road. It was to be constructed by the Sarpanch of the village. The Sarpanch of the village gave that work of construction of cement concrete road to complainant Sachin Balaji Chavan. The complainant constructed the said road. The approximate costs of the said work was Rs.1,97,103.00. After completion of the construction work in the year 2014, the complainant submitted the running bill to the appellant, who was working as an Executive Engineer in the Zilla Parishad, Nanded. The complainant then met to the appellant and requested him to sign necessary document required for passing of the bill of that work. The appellant demanded 2% of the bill amount i.e. Rs.4,000.00 as a bribe for sanctioning the bill for making payment. The complainant was not willing to pay that amount. Therefore, he said that he would come later with the bribe money. The complainant then went to the ACB and gave a complaint to the police inspector Dayanand Sarvade on 30/9/2014. Accordingly, verification of bribe amount was done and a trap was arranged. Thereafter, the Panchas were called. Anthracene powder was applied to the currency notes of Rs.3,000.00. Accordingly, the raiding party alongwith the complainant and Panchas went into the parking place of the premises of the Zilla Parishad, Nanded, where the appellant accepted the bribe amount in the presence of Panchas. The appellant then kept the said amount in the left side's pocket of his pant. The hands of the accused were checked in the rays of ultraviolet lamp. The anthracene powder was seen on the tips of the left hand's fingers of the appellant. The tainted currency notes and the pant of the appellant were seized. The report was lodged. The investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed. Charge was framed. The three witnesses i.e. the complainant (PW-1), the Panch witness (PW-2) and the investigating officer (PW-3) were examined. After considering the matter before it, the learned Special Judge held the appellant liable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.

(3.) During the argument, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted and pointed out the grounds of objections of the appeal. He submitted that the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The complainant was not allotted the work of construction of the said road. Therefore, he was not entitled to that bill. The complainant has given his occupation as a student. The licence of the contractorship of the complainant is not produced on record. Therefore, he cannot do such construction work. The demand and acceptance are not proved. The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the evidence that the said work of construction of the road was allotted to the Sarpanch and not to the complainant. He further pointed out the evidence on record and submitted that no independent witness was examined to prove the acceptance of the said tainted currency notes. When PW-2 had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant as to the demand of the bribe, as it was not audible, the complainant's evidence became reasonably doubtful and remained uncorroborated, which goes to the root of the matter that there was no demand. The Demand Verification Panchanama (Exhibit-37) is reasonably doubtful. It is lastly prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Special Court.