STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KAILAS ONKAR MOHITE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, State is assailing judgment and order dtd. 24/12/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Nandurbar, thereby acquitting respondent from charges under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Complainant PW2 Sitaram, who set law into motion, was at relevant time, serving as Kendra Pramukh (Center Head) of Zilla Parishad Primary School at Borpada. Under Government scheme of providing nutritious food, bills were required to be drawn and tendered to Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nawapur. PW2 Complainant had forwarded consolidated bill in the office of Panchayat Samiti through one of the Teachers of the school namely Vilas More, who approached present accused, who was working as a Teacher, but was on deputation in Zilla Parishad to assist Extension Officer and was responsible to verify the bills. On 30/3/2010, complainant learnt through Vilas More that accused told him that there are technical mistakes in the bill and as such bill cannot be sanctioned and further allegedly told that bribe of Rs.2,500.00 would be required for correcting and encashing the bills. Complainant personally visited accused on 1/4/2010, but again he too was allegedly told that there are several technical mistakes and unless he receives Rs.2,500.00 as bribe, mistakes would not be allowed to be rectified. As complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and lodged complaint resulting into planning of trap, its execution, apprehending accused. After investigation, accused was chargesheeted and tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Nandurbar, who was pleased to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and finally recorded finding and opinion that prosecution failed to prove its charges and by order dtd. 24/12/2012 acquitted the accused from charges under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the above acquittal, which is taken exception to by the State by filing instant appeal.

(3.) Sum and substance of arguments advanced by learned APP is that there is no dispute that complainant and accused were working as Kendra Pramukh (Center Head) and Teacher respectively in Zilla Parishad School. There is no dispute about the assignments with them and respondent original accused dealing with verification of consolidated bills under the nourishment scheme floated by the State Government. Learned APP pointed out that bills were duly tendered through another Teacher Vilas More and there was initial demand of Rs.2,500.00 through him by way of illegal gratification. When complainant learnt about it, he too had approached accused, but under the garb of some technical mistakes, there was demand of bribe to him also of which prompt complaint was lodged.