MOTIRAM JAISINGH PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted for the offence under sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count, the substantive sentence having been directed to run concurrently. The appellant Motiram was tried with another Waman before the trial Court for the above offences with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts leading to the present appeal may be narrated as under.

(2.) The appellant-original accused No. 1 and the acquitted accused Waman are both serving in the Divisional Office of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for shot hereinafter referred to as "M.S.E.B.") at Jintoor, District Parbhani. They were working in the Bill Section of the said Office. The complainant-Satwarao runs a flour mill at village Chamani, which comes within the jurisdiction of Jintoor sub-Division of the M.S.E.B. The said flour mill run on electricity and he has regular electric supply from the M.S.E.B. with a separate electric supply meter at the flour mill.

(3.) According to the prosecution, the said Satwaro used to pay his electric bills regularly. The bills which he used to receive were of the amount of Rs. 100 to Rs. 200 on an average in the month of December 1980, to be precise on 15-12-1980, the complainant-Satwarao received a bill for Rs. 938/- vide Exh. 27. The complainant felt aggrieved by such an excessive amount and he was sure that there has been some mistake, in the bill forwarded to him. According to the prosecution, the complainant-Satwarao went to the office of the M.S.E.B. at Jintoor on 24-12-1980 and met the Assistant Engineer Shri Somani-P.W. 5 and narrated his grievance. The said Assistant Engineer, however, directed him to deposit the entire amount and also assured him that the bill would be got verified from the Meter Section and the ledger book. Apparently, the complainant was not satisfied with his answer. On the same day, he went to the bill section and met both the accused, i.e. appellant-Motiram and the acquitted accused Waman. According to him he had explained his grievance to these two persons, but as both of them were busy they had asked him to come on the next day. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant went to the office on the next day and again requested the two accused for correction of the bill issued to him and for reduction of the amount. According to the complainant both the accused assured that they would be in a position to reduce the bill to an amount of Rs. 138/- only if they were paid an amount of Rs. 600/-. There was a bargain between the complainant on the one hand and the two accused on the other and ultimately, an amount of Rs. 400/- was agreed upon by the complainant to be paid to both the accused, in consideration for which the accused persons agreed to reduce the bill to Rs. 138/-. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant had expressed that he would be in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 400/- just after the village fair was over and, at any rate, within 7 or 8 days.