BHIMRAO SAVALA GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 250/in default suffer further R.I. for one month for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by Special Judge, Pune in Special Case No. 10/1989 vide Judgment and Order dated 28/6/1995. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :

(3.) P.W. 1 Baban Kokare is the original complainant. He has deposed before the Court that his uncle Dhondiba Kokare was the tenant and was in possession of gat No. 88 situated at Bahirwadi. The owners of the said land are Genba Raut and others. Since 1988, there was a civil dispute between owners and the tenants of the Gat No. 108 and 88. That he was to produce certified copy of 7/12 extract in the Court and therefore, he had approached Talathi of Village Bahirwadi on 3/4/1989. There was demand of illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 500/- for issuing 7/12 extract. On the next date his uncle had paid Rs. 250/- to the accused. The accused had enquired about the balance amount. That he was being harassed by the accused for want of balance amount and therefore, he was constrained to approach the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau. That at the time of trap, the complainant was along with shadow panch Mr. Satav. The accused had enquired about the identity of Mr. Satav. At that time, the accused had informed the complainant P.W. 1 that the previous Talathi was not available and therefore, he was requesting the complainant to come on Wednesday for taking 7/12 extract. The complainant was annoyed as he had gone to the said office more than 23 occasions. The accused had then enquired about the amount as agreed. The complainant had answered in the affirmative and he extended the bribe amount to the accused. That the accused was standing at the entrance door of the inner room of that office and therefore, the complainant was also standing there. The accused had accepted the amount and the complainant had given predetermined signal.