(1.) Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same judgment and order finding them guilty of the offences relating to bribery committed in the same crime.
(2.) The appeal Nos.665/2006 and 667/2006 are preferred by Dr. Govind Narayan Vaidya (original accused No.1) and Charandas alias Ashok son of Nagorao Dupare (original accused No.2). These appellants hereinafter shall be referred to as accused No.1 and accused No.2 respectively. These appeals challenge the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 7.11.2006 convicting and sentencing the accused Nos.1 and 2 with term imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each together with default sentence, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2), and Sec. 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the, "PC Act"), rendered in Special Case No.8 of 2002 by Judge, Special Court, Nagpur.
(3.) Briefly stated facts of the case are as under : In June 2000, the accused No.1 was working as a Superintendent, in Regional Mental Hospital, Nagpur. It has been alleged that the accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2, a private person, who was running a cycle stand at Mental Hospital, Nagpur as a contractor, demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 3,000.00 from the complainant, Raju Damodar Ladkar, by way of bribe and pecuniary advantage for doing official work of issuing fitness certificate to one Harish Pujari, brother-in-law of the complainant. It has been alleged that Harish Pujari was working as a Peon in Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur and was removed from service due to his frequent absenteeism and wayward behaviour. The complainant was a worried person and looking for some solution to the difficulty being faced by his brother-in-law after his removal from service. On 20th June, 2000, he had taken his brother in law to the Mental Hospital and upon examination, the brother-in-law was prescribed some medicines. When this fact was discussed by the complainant with his neighbour, his neighbour suggested to him to obtain fitness certificate from the Mental Hospital and he also told that if such a certificate could be procured by him, there was a possibility that his brother-in-law would be reinstated in service by High Court. Therefore, the complainant visited the Mental Hospital on 23.6.2000 and made an inquiry in that direction. Accused No.2 Charandas alias Ashok Dupare, a cycle stand contractor, was contacted by the complainant. The cycle contractor (accused No.2) expressed his willingness to help the complainant and his brother-in-law in the matter. He told the complainant that a fitness certificate could be obtained from the accused No.1, if he was paid a bribe of Rs. 3,000.00. He also told that unless bribe amount was paid to the accused No.1, no certificate would be issued. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount but he did not say it so to accused No.2 and instead told him that if some time was given, he would be able to arrange for amount of Rs. 3,000.00. The accused No.2 gave him time till next Monday. The complainant, on the next day, visited the Anti Corruption Bureau Office and lodged a complaint against this appellant and accused No.2. A trap for catching the accused No.1 and accused No.2 red-handed was arranged to be set up on 26.6.2000 and necessary arrangements were made. However, on 26.6.2000, as no bribe amount was paid to either of the accused and fitness certificate was also not issued, the complainant and the members of the raiding party returned to A.C.B. Office without any success. On 26.6.2000, the complainant had been told by the accused No.1 and the other accused to approach them a few days later for obtaining the fitness certificate. Therefore, a supplementary complaint was given and the date of laying the trap was rescheduled to 3.7.2000. On 3.7.2000, it has been alleged, amount of Rs. 3,000.00 was paid and received by accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 after the complainant was asked by the accused No.1 to handover the amount to accused No.2. This amount was recovered from the possession of accused No.2. Necessary panchanamas were drawn out. A formal complaint was lodged. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against both the accused. On merits of the case, learned Special Judge found the accused No.1 as well as accused No.2 as guilty of the offences with which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them for the offences in the manner stated earlier by the judgment and order delivered on 7.11.2006. It is the same judgment and order which have been challenged in these two appeals.