SHARAD NAMDEORAO SHIRBHATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Taking exception to his conviction for offences punishable under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 of the Penal Code, the accused in Special case No. 7 of 1988 before the learned Special Judge, Amravati, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The appellant is a Talathi and was in-charge of Village Dapori. Complainant Pundlik was a Police Head Constable. Pundlik had purchased 4 acres and 30 gunthas of land bearing Survey No. 33/1 at Village Salbardi, which was under the jurisdiction of the Talathi of Dapori. Pundlik approached the appellant for effecting mutation of the said land in his name and handed over a copy of the sale-deed for the: said purpose. The appellant allegedly made a demand of Rs. 1007- for effecting mutation. Pundlik promised that he would pay the amount after the work was done. On 29-5-1987, the complainant again approached the appellant and enquired about the progress. When the appellant informed that mutation had already been effected and asked the complainant whether he had brought a sum of Rs. 100/-, the complainant requested the appellant to issue copies of 7/12 extract, since the complainant wanted to raise a bank loan, assuring that he would make a payment of Rs. 100/- after the receipt of bank loan. The appellant allegedly told the complainant that he would issue 7/12 extract, but retain the copy of sale-deed till he was paid Rs. 100/ -. The appellant persisted with his demand whenever the appellant and the complainant met. On 12-7-1987, the demand was again repeated, when the complainant promised to make payment on 14-7-1987 at S. T. Stand, Morshi. On 13-7-1987, the complainant gave a report t:o Anti-Corruption Bureau and the officers in the anti-Corruption Bureau prepared for a trap on 14-7-1987. On 14-7-1987, the appellant was trapped after having received the bribe amount of Rs. 100/ -. Necessary panchanamas were drawn up, offence was registered and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was sent up.

(3.) Upon being charged by the learned Special Judge for offences punishable under section 5 (l) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 of the Penal Code, the appellant pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial; in course of which, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Upon consideration of evidence tendered, the learned Special Judge came to convict and sentence the appellant as mentioned above. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal.