ANANDRAO BAPU PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue arisen in this appeal is "whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove that the amount of Rs.500.00 paid by the Appellant-accused to the de-facto Complainant was towards illegal gratification or whether it was towards arrears of water charges?".

(2.) After evidence, the Court of Special Judge, Sangli, as per judgment dtd. 23/10/2002, was pleased to convict the Appellant for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Sec. 13 (1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence imposed was rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500.00. In case of default in payment of fine, the Appellant was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. This sentence was imposed for each offence. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged by the Appellant by way of this A ppeal.

(3.) I have heard learned Advocate Shri Mankapure for the Appellant and learned APP Shri Holambe-Patil for the Respondent-State. With their assistance, I have gone through the evidence and the record. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, needs to be restated. It is as follows:- Prosecution Case