MADHURI PRAKASH KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the accused Sau.Madhuri Prakash Kulkarni impugning a judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Pune, in Special Case No.6 of 1993, on 19.9.1998, convicting the accused for an offence punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the basis of such conviction, she has been sentenced to under-go one year R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to undergo further R.I. of three months for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. She was also sentenced to under-go R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to under-go R.I. for 3 months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been directed that both the sentences should run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case were as under :-

(3.) AS per the evidence of the Complainant the first demand is said to have been made by the accused on 1.10.1992 at 11.30 A.M., when he met her in her office. In his evidence he claims to have told the accused that as he has not received the salary he was unable to pay the amount. The version given by him in his FIR is however, slightly different. In his FIR he states that he has not received the salary and would therefore, obtain the money from his relatives and hand over the same. There is no corroboration to this evidence of the Complainant. It must be born in mind that when the Complainant went to the office of the A.C.B. he was found to have Rs.120.00 in his pocket. He does not said in his examination-in-chief that he had the money but did not wish to give the same to the accused because he had decided to file a complaint against her to the A.C.B. As far as this demand is concerned, I am thus hesitant to place reliance on the same. The 2nd demand is said to have been made by the accused at the time of the trap. It is the complainant's version that accused asked him to put Rs.100.00 in the register and at her behest he put the notes in the register. It is admitted by the complainant that one person was sitting opposite the accused. The panch and investigating officer had identified this person who was sitting opposite as one Ladade. It is significant that Ladade has not been examined as a prosecution witness. It is also an admitted position that no anthracene powder was found on the clothes of the accused or on any part of the body of the accused. No doubt, the panch also talks about the accused making the demand and asking the Complainant to keep Rs.100.00 in the register. Surprisingly, this version is not to be found in the post trap panchanama at all.