SUDHAKAR SHIVARAM LELE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1990, passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, in Special Case No.36 of 1988, convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under section 161 of I.P.C. and under section 5(2) r/w. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the first charge and further to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the second count. Substantial sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that, the appellant was working as an accountant in the office of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay in the year 1988. The charge against the appellant-accused is that on 11th, 12th and 13th January, 1988, he demanded Rs.250/- from the complainant Sudhin Govind Tarkar for handing over a cheque to the complainant. It is the prosecution case that because of repeated demand by the appellant-accused from the complainant, the complainant approached A.C.B. office and filed a complaint. Accordingly, A.C.B. arranged a trap and on 15th January, 1988. Rs.250/- notes, according to the prosecution evidence, was inserted in the drawer of the table of the appellant by the complainant with anthracene powder. It is pertinent to note that the appellant-accused has not touched the currency notes. The prosecution evidence is that the complainant P.W.1 had opened the drawer of the table of the appellant-accused and kept the marked currency notes in the same. The said marked currency notes were seized by the A.C.B. officer Mr.Abdul Rauf. Thereafter, statements of the panchas and the witnesses were recorded and chargesheet was filed to the court. Accordingly, the appellant-accused was charged for offence punishable under section 161 of I.P.C. and under section 5(2) r/w. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) HEARD Mr.Hudlikar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Shinde, learned A.P.P. for State.