PRABHAKAR PITAMBAR TAMBAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has preferred the present appeal challenging the order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 7/1989, whereby the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and was also convicted for the offence under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ -.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that during the year 1988-89 the accused-appellant was working as Sheristedar in the office of Deputy Collector, amalner Sub-Division. On 17-3-1988 it was announced in the village Janwe that the Government intended to allot fair price shop and the interested parties could make an application to Sutb-Divisional Officer Amalner. In view of this, complainant Bhatu Vikaram Patil, P. W. I also applied for fair price shop for village Janwe, in the month of March, 1988. In July, 1988, he was called in the supply Office at Amalner and his statement was recorded by the concerned officer. In September, 1988, he was informed to comply requirement of necessary documents in support of his proposal. On 12-9-1988, the complainant approached the office of Sl. D. O. at Amalner with relevant documents. He approached S. D. O. Tikaram Bagul D. W. 2. At that time the accused was also called in the Chamber of S. D. O. The S. D. O. Bagul asked the accused about the proposal of the complainant for fair price shop and also enquired as to whether he had purchased any small saviing certificate and if yes, for how much amount. As he had not purchased any small saving certificate, the complainant was informed that he would be required to invest Rs. 5,0007- in small savings to get fair price shop. However, the complainant showed his inability but he expressed that he could invest at the most Rs. 1,000/ -. At that time S. D. O. Bagul told him that it was not possible to allot fair price shop for such small investment and he insisted for Rs. 5,000/ -. After this talk S. D. O. left the office for some meeting at Parola. After that the complainant contacted the; accused, who advised him to come on the next day. Accordingly, the complainant again went to the office of S. D. O. on 13-9-1988. When he went to the office of the S. D. O. , the accused was also called there and after interview of the complainant, he was asked to deposit Rs. 1,0007-in small saving by the S. D. O. According to prosecution after coming out office of s. D. O. , the complainant enquired with the accused about the investment and the accused informed him that he shall deposit Rs. 5007- in the small saving. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs. 5007- to one Patil, a Clerk in the office, so that the small saving certificate of Rs. 5007- could be purchased. He was told by patil, that he would keep the certificates; ready within 2/3 days. On 14-9-1988, the complainant paid fee of Rs. 57- by chajlan. According to prosecution on 19-9-1988 at about 3 p. m. the complainant again went to the office of S. D. O. and he informed accused that he had invested Rs. 5007- in the small saving certificate. He enquired about the fair price shop license and the accused told him that the license was ready. However, for delivery of the license the accused demanded rs. 5007 -. The complainant told him Uhat he would make the payment on 20th/21st September, 1988 as he did not have cash at that time.

(3.) As the complainant had no intenlion to pay the bribe, he approached the office of And Corruption Bureau at Dhul, on 20th September, 1988 and lodged the report. Dy. S. P. Choudhari of A. C. B. asked the complainant to come to his office next day morning. Accordingly, the complainant went to the office of a. C. B. in the morning of 20th September, 1988. At that time two panch witnesses were called. The complainant narrated his complaint in presence of Dy. S. P. and the panch witnesses. The procedure of the trap, use and effect of anthracene powder etc. was explained to the complainant and the panch witnesses. The complainant was having an amount of Rs. 6257 -. Out of that 5 notes of Rs. 1007- each were separated. Anthracene powder was applied to both sides of those 5 notes and the said notes were folded and put in the right side hip pocket of the pant of the complainant. He was clearly instructed that he should not touch the notes, unless there was a demand from the accused. Panch No. 1 ravji (P. W. 2) was instructed to remain with the complainant throughout the incident of the trap and to watch and hear what would happen. Accordingly, the raiding party consisting of the complainant, both panch witnesses, Dy. S. P. Choudhari and other staff members went towards the S. D. O. office.