NILKANTH PURUSHOTTAM GAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by his conviction for the offence punishable under sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 and sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon him, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The facts, which led to the appellant's prosecution, are as under : the appellant was working as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, sawargaon, Tahsil: Kalamb, District: Yavatmal in the year 1986. On 4-11-1986 he performed a family planning operation on one Ramabai Kitke who had been persuaded to undergo that operation by one Chhaya Kamalji Kitke. Said Chhaya was working as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife at Health Centre, Tarnoli. Ramabai was wife of Chhaya's brother. Chhaya needed certificate from the accused that she was promoter who had motivated Ramabai to undergo family planning operation, since such certificate would have enable Chhaya to get appropriate reward from the State. When Chhaya asked the accused to give such a certificate he demanded a bribe of Rs. Hundred. This demand was repeated by accused before Chhaya's brother Vijay Kitke. Chhaya told accused that since she do not have such an amount her brother would pay such amount and that Dr. Gan should hand-over necessary form to Vijay Kitke. Vijay gave report to Anti Corruption bureau whereupon a trap was arranged. On 16-12-1986 Vijay gave the amount to the accused in presence of a panch. The accused had asked Vijay to keep the amount in an envelope which was kept on the table. After receiving signal the raiding Party swooped and recovered the sum of Rs. Hundred kept in an envelope. After completing post trap formalities offence was registered and on completion of investigation sanction to prosecute the appellant was sought from the competent authority. On receipt of sanction charge-sheet was sent up.

(3.) To a charge of offence punishable under sections 5 (1) (d) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, framed against him, accused pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses. After considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in the light of defence of denial, the learned Special Judge held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal.