GOVINDA RAMAJI DHURVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are against the judgment and order passed on 5/3/ 2003 in Special Case No. 1/93 by the Judge of special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Nagpur, where under the appellant Shankarlal Ramji Bhawarkar (original accused no. 1) is convicted under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) , 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, and fine of Rs. 1500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months, and rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine of Rs. 1500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months, and appellant govinda Ramaji Dhurve (original accused no. 2) is convicted under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) and section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine of Rs. 1500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months, rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months, and rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine of Rs. 1500/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellant Shankarlal Ramji bhawarkar (original accused no. 1) was Sub-Engineer in m. S. E. B. at Deolapar, while the appellant Govinda Ramaji Dhurve (original accused no. 2) was working under appellant shankarlal as Line Helper. Both the appellants were tried for the charge that during the period from December, 1991 to January, 1992, they were working as Sub-Engineer and Line Helper respectively in M. S. E. B. at Deolapar and as such were public servants within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That, Smt. Girijabai Tulsiram Bhal, mother of the complainant Shri Tekchand tulsiram Bhal (P. W. 1) had applied to M. S. E. B. in the month of February or March, 1991, for electric connection in her field and also had deposited an amount for installation as per demand notice issued by M. S. E. B. on 8/10/1991 and on 31/12/1991, when the complainant tekchand Tulsiram Bhal requested the appellant shankarlal Ramji Bhawarkar for early electric connection, he demanded from him an amount of Rs. 200/- and agreed to accept the same on 7/1/1992 and accepted the same for himself through the appellant-Govinda Ramaji Dhurve as a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing favour in exercise of their official functions in the matter of giving electric connection and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was further alleged that the appellant shankarlal, on 7/1/1992 obtained pecuniary advantage i. e. a sum of Rs. 200/- for himself from tekchand through the appellant Govinda by corrupt and illegal means by abusing his position as public servant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption act. It is further alleged that accused Govinda, by demanding and accepting from the complainant Tekchand, an amount of Rs. 200/-for and on behalf of accused Shankarlal, has aided and abetted the above offence and as such has committed an offence punishable under sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) , 13 (2) of the Prevent of Corruption Act.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant Tekchand had been to the office of Anti-corruption Bureau, Nagpur, on 7th january, 1992 and he lodged oral complaint with anti-Corruption Officer-S. P. Shri. Gavai (P. W. 8) against the appellant Shankarlal, which was reduced into writing. The contents of the said complaint are that the complainant and his mother Girijabai had 6 acres of agricultural land which is situated within the jurisdiction of distribution Centre of M. S. E. B. situated at deolapar and they have installed electric pump on the well in that land. So they are in need of electric connection to run the electric pump set to provide water to the crops standing in the land. They moved an application to the office of m. S. E. B. at Deolapar requesting for electric connection and the office of the M. S. E. B. issued demand note in the year 1991 and after receipt of the demand note, complainant Tekchand made payment of Rs. 960/- towards the demand note issued. That amount was deposited in the Bank on 8/10/1991. That receipt was given to appellant shankarlal along with the copy of the test report. As it happened that the complainant Tekchand repeatedly requested the appellant Shankarlal for giving electric connection, the latter assured that he would provide electric connection within 2-3 days. However, despite that assurance given by him, the electric connection was not provided. Though the complainant Tekchand met the appellant Shankarlal at number of times, this led the complainant to make an application requesting for providing electric connection. So also making a grievance that in spite of depositing the amount as per the demand note, the electric connection was not provided. It was also said by the complainant that already pole was installed in his field near the well and electric line upto the pole was also laid.