YESHWANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal at the instance of the appellant who has been convicted for an offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as also under sections 5 (l) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) AT the relevant time, the appellant-accused was working as a Clerk and was attached to the Court of Naib Tahsildar at Deoli, District Wardha. lt is the prosecution case that as such he was working as a public servant. The prosecution alleges that there was a summons issued to the complainant, P. W. 1- Nana Jagobaji Ikhare and his son Bhaskar in respect of a prosecution under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution contends that they had executed their bonds and they were released on bail. During the pendency of this chapter case, they came to be arrested for the offence under section 307 read with section 34-of the Indian Penal Code by Deoli Police Station and, therefore, the Police Station Officer, Deoli Police Station, informed the Naib Tahsildar, Deoli, about the registration of the offence against them under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and requested him to cancel their bail in the chapter case. It is the prosecution case that one day prior to the day on which the chapter case was fixed, the appellant- Yeshwant Majathiya met the complainant Nana Ikhare in Wardha and told him about the intimation sent to Naib Tahsildar by the police and asked him to deposit surety amount of Rs. 2000/- as his bonds would now be cancelled, as he had committed an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code, during the pendency of the chapter case. It is, therefore, that the first demand is said to have been made for Rs. 200/ -. Where upon he (complainant) would not be required to deposit the surety amount. The complainant was directed to bring the said amount of Rs. 200/- on the next date. On the next date, the complainant and his son went to Tahsil Office, Deoli, along with one Motiram Thhar, and furnished fresh sureties in the name of the said Motiram Ikhar. However, the appellant accused gave next short date to the complainant and his son, i. e. , only off our-five days. On the given date, the complainant and his son went to the Tahsil Office, Deoli for attending the chapter case. However, again the appellant-accused repeated his demand of Rs. 200/ -. It must be said that the dates on which these demands have been made are all confused by the prosecution. The appellant-accused, therefore, gave the next date to the complainant and his son in the Chapter case, and on practically every date, the appellant accused used to demand Rs. 200/- from the complainant and the complainant used to pay Rs. 5/- or Rs. 10/- on every date and the accused used to keep the amount in the drawer of his table. Being sick of the persistent demand of the bribe money, the complainant is said to have gone to the Anti Corruption Department at Wardha and lodged a complaint (Exhibit 26 ).

(3.) IN the complaint (Ex. 26), the whole history of the first summons, of furnishing sureties and executing the bonds, is given in detail. It is further stated that the summons dated 26. 4. 1983 was served on the complainant and his son from Tamboli Saheb, meaning the Naib Tahsildar, Deoli, and thereafter the accused is said to have made a demand for Rs. 200/ -. The complaint is full of the unnecessary details which are of conflicting nature. Be that as it may, in the complaint, the complainant claimed that he was going to pay Rs. 100/- to the accused on 5. 5. 1983 which was the date fixed for hearing of the Chapter case. It is also pointed out in the complaint that the accused was usually accepting the money by putting it in his drawer. One sentence in this complaint is worthy to note and that is: He accepts money sometimes directly arid sometimes he asks to put the amount in the drawer of his table secretly.