SUKHDEO PANDURANG JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant (accused) has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 25/09/2009, passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Aurangabad in Special Case No.06/2005, convicting him for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for shot 'the said Act').

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as under :-

(3.) Since PW-2 Sudame was not willing to pay bribe of Rs.100.00, he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau Office (ACB office), Aurangabad. He met PW-4/Anil Gaikwad, Police Inspector and narrated the aforesaid facts, which were reduced in writing as per his narration at Exhibit-12. Accordingly, two employees, namely Sohel Ahemad Khan and Syed Abud Athar were called to act as panch witnesses. After completing formalities, they formed the raiding team and appropriate instructions were given to the members of the raiding team. PW-4/Anil Gaikwad, P.I. gave instructions to the complainant, panchas and members of raiding team. Complainant was instructed to go to the office of accused for the purpose of work alongwith panch No.1/Sohel Khan and if accused makes demand of bribe money, then to handover tainted currency note to him and upon acceptance of the same, transmit signal by scratching over the neck by hand. Similarly, panch No.1/Sohel was also instructed to remain with complainant and note down the events and happenings that would take place at the spot of incident. Panch No.2/ was instructed to remain with the raiding team and keep watch on the events and happenings. Accordingly, complainant and panch witnesses as per pre-planned went to office of the accused. Complainant asked accused about the copy of the decision. The accused asked the complainant, whether he has brought the challan, to which complainant answered in the affirmative and he produced the same to the accused. Accused kept the said challan in the drawer of the table. Accused asked the complainant to come on Monday to collect the copy of the decision. However, complainant told accused that, on Monday he is going out of station and he would sent his client to him to collect the copy of decision. The accused then demanded bribe of Rs.100.00. Complainant removed tainted currency note from the left pocket of his shirt by his right hand and held before the accused. Accused accepted the said currency note by his right hand and kept it in the left pocket of his shirt. As per pre-plan, complainant came out and transmitted signal by scratching over the neck. Accused also came out of the office behind him. At that time, PW-4/Anil Gaikwad, P.I., alongwith his staff members came there as per plan. Panch witness No.1 told PW-4 about acceptance of bribe by the appellant. PW-4/Anil Gaikwad introduced himself to the accused. Two police men caught hold both the hands of accused and brought him in the office. The hands of members of raiding party were inspected under ultra violet light and shown to the accused that their hands do not show shining of anthracene powder. The hands of accused were inspected under ultra violet light whereupon his right hand fingers showed shining of anthracene powder. PW-4 asked accused as to where he had kept tainted currency note to which accused made gesture towards his chest pocket of shirt. Panch No.2 was instructed to remove tainted currency note from the left pocket of the shirt of accused, and accordingly, he did the same. Accordingly, the said currency note was seen under ultra violet light whereupon it showed greenish shining of anthracene powder. All the formalities of recording spot panchnama and seizure of documents came to be conducted. The accused was asked to give explanation. He gave explanation at Exhibit-23. Accused was taken to the Police Station, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad, where PW-4 lodged report, on the basis of which crime bearing C.R. No.3129/2004 came to be registered on 25/11/2004 against the accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused came to be arrested under arrest panchnama. All the investigation papers were sent to ACB office to obtain sanction to prosecute the accused. PW-1/Dr. Anand Balwantrao Jogdand, Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant/accused for the offence under Ss. 7 and 13(1) (d) punishable under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.