CHANDRAKANT HANUMANTRAO SUGARE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months and fine of Rs. 750.00 in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default S.I. for six months by the Special Judge, Solapur in Special Case No.18 of 1993 vide judgment and order dated 30.4.1997. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) The appellant herein was working in the office of Panchayat Samiti, Solapur in the cadre of Mistry Grade I. It was his duty to prepare the bills of the agencies to whom the work was allotted by the Panchayat Samiti. On 18.1993, one Sanjay Mule approached the Office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Solapur, lodged a report alleging therein that he was allotted the work of repairing hand-pumps in the villages. He was given contract of repairing hand-pumps at the rate of Rs. 25.00 each. He had received the bills for the work which he had completed for the period April to June, 1993. He was to receive the bill for the month of July, 1993. In fact, since 1.8.1993, the contract was withdrawn from the complainant. According to him, he had been to the office of the Panchayat Samiti on 11.8.1993 and had approached the appellant and requested him to draw the bill for the month of July, 1993. It was alleged that the appellant had informed him that unless he was given some gratification, the bill would not be drawn. That the appellant had demanded Rs. 100.00. The appellant had asked him to submit a list of the particulars of work done by him. After submission of the bill, the appellant had signed the bill and had sent it for approval to the office of the Block Development Officer. On 18.1993, he was to receive the amount of the bill. According to him, there was a demand of Rs. 100.00 from the appellant which he was not willing to pay. Hence, he had approached the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

(3.) The statement of the complainant Sanjay Mule (PW-4) is at Exhibit 28. Dy. S.P,. Shri Chavan had taken cognizance of the complaint filed by Shri Sanjay Mule. He had called upon two public witnesses to act as panchas for the raid and the raid was arranged on 12.8.199 On that day, the original complainant had received the amount of bill. Thereafter, the appellant had allegedly met the complainant in the building premises of the Panchayat Samiti. That he had demanded Rs. 100.00 from the complainant. However, he had told the complainant to wait at the tea stall of Swamy. Since there was rush on the said stall, they had gone to the tea stall of one Chandu. Thereafter, the accused-appellant had allegedly demanded the money which was handed over to him by the complainant. Soon thereafter, upon receiving the pre-determined signal, the members of the raiding party had accosted the accused-appellant. A panchnama was recorded of all the facts that had taken place in the course of the trap. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter being accosted by Dy. S.P. and upon enquiry made by him, the accused was frightened. The Dy. S.P. Chavan had made a specific query as to the purpose for which the amount was received and the accused had suddenly informed the Dy. S.P. that the complainant had assured him that soon after he received the bill, he would pay him Rs. 100.00 and that he had received the same. The accused had categorically informed the Investigating Officer that the complainant had told him that he would pay him Rs. 100.00 towards the bill. After the raid was successful, Dy. S.P. Chavan lodged the FIR against the accused. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.792 of 1993 was filed at Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur. On 12.1993, the Investigating agency received the sanction order for prosecuting the accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 22.12.199 The prosecution examined six witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.