MADHUKAR WASUDEORAO GEDAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.1.2005 in Special Case No. 2/1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Wardha, by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/ws. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default, further R.I. for two moths and was further convicted for offence punishable u/s. 13 (1)(d) r/ws. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ in default to undergo further R.I. for two months, which were directed to be run concurrently, the present Appeal was filed by the appellant.

(2.) It is the prosecution case that the appellantMadhukar Gedam, was working as a Talathi (Patwari) of Halka No.21, Mouza Kharannga (Gode) Tahsil & District: Wardha. Complainant Kundan Champatrao Sukalkar of village Karanji (Kazi) succeeded to the estate left by his fatherChampatrao, who died on1.4.1996, along with his brother, two sisters and motherShakuntalabai. ComplainantKundan therefore met appellantMadhukar, who was Talathi of concerned area. He gave him blank Form No.9 and asked him to get the signatures of legal heirs of deceasedChampatrao and also gave one more application addressed to the Tahsildar to be signed by all the legal heirs for effecting mutation. The appellant is stated to have told him that he is required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ for effecting mutation. Kundan requested him to reduce the amount and after bargaining, the sum was settled at Rs. 400/. PW 1complainant Kundan, thereafter, met the appellant on 19.3.1997 and supplied him the application signed by all legal heirs. At that time, the appellant demanded Rs. 400/ from him, towards illegal gratification. The complainant, at that time, said that he did not have the amount and thereupon the appellant told him to come to his office with an amount of Rs. 400/ on 25.3.1997. However, Kundan could not arrange the money by that date. He went along with his cousin Omprakash Korde (PW 5) to the office of the appellant and told him that the money could not be arranged. The appellant told the complainant that it would not be possible to carry out the mutation unless the money is paid. The appellant himself suggested to the complainant to take the amount as handloan from his cousin and, accordingly, he borrowed Rs. 200/ from PW 5Omprakash, which was given to the appellant. The appellant then asked him to give the remaining amount of Rs. 200/ on 1.4.1997 at Tahsil office, Wardha in order to get the work done. But, PW 1 Kundan went to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged his report. Thereafter a trap was arranged in the Office where several Patwaris were found working, the trap was completed and thereafter necessary procedure was followed. Before filing the chargesheet since it came to the fore that appellant was saying that he had prepared receipt of the even date, namely, 01.04.1997 in respect of remeasurement charges in the sum of Rs. 223/ in the name of the party, since PW 1 Kundan had come to him for making payment thereof, but then he was to accept the money in token of that receipt, and was caught red handed by the trap party. PW 6 Investigating Officer ( Dy. S.P), then made enquiry about the remeasurement fees etc., as to whether really the appellant was recovering remeasurement fees from the cultivators/farmers and accordingly, he placed those documents on record. The sanctioning authority, namely, SubDivisional Officer, Wardha granted sanction to prosecute the appellant and thereafter the trial was held. Ultimately, the appellant was found guilty and was convicted, as narrated hereinabove. Hence this Appeal.

(3.) In support of the Appeal, Mr. O.D. Kakade, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to consider the fact that the prosecution was totally vitiated for want of legal and proper sanction as the SubDivisional Officer PW 3Ravindra Thakre, was not competent to remove the appellant from service and, therefore, for want of legal and valid sanction, order of acquittal should have been made. Learned counsel then contended that perusal of the sanction order shows that the A.C.B. had supplied him the draft sanction order and though PW 3Ravindra knew that two Talathis were involved in the said trap, no explanation was sought by him from the A.C.B. as to the said aspect of the matter. He then submitted that perusal of the sanction order read with his crossexamination will clearly show that the PW 3Ravindra has mechanically and rather in a pedantic way, granted sanction, that too without application of mind. The learned counsel invited my attention to the entire crossexamination of PW 3 Ravindra and urged that the crossexamination in terms shows total nonapplication of mind on his part and therefore the sanction that was granted, was fully vitiated. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the learned trial Judge has unjustifiably brushed aside the defence that was taken ignoring the clear document/receipt ( Exh. 93) on which the names of the parties were clearly mentioned so also the amount of Rs. 223/ along with the date, namely, 01.04.1997 for recovery of the remeasurement charges. The trial court, however, did not accept the said defence by comparing with serial numbers of the receipts etc when, as a matter of fact, no such evidence was brought or produced before the Court by the prosecution nor was it the case of the prosecution that the numbers did not tally. He, therefore, submitted that the defence was clearly probabilized and benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant. Eventually, the learned counsel has prayed for setting the conviction and sentence.