STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHARAT KRISHNARAO MANDLIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the Special Judge, Satara in Special Case No.2 of 1996, dated 8th January 1988. The respondent was charged under section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, the accused is a public servant serving as Junior Engineer attached to Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Sectional Office, Mayani, Satara at the relevant time. The complainant Gorakhanath Jyoti Suryavanshi is an ex-serviceman. In order to start business of vulcanisation, Suryavanshi P.W.1 has purchased a plot at Mayani and applied for electric supply connection for commercial purpose. After obtaining permission from the revenue authorities, he made his application for electric connection. Though, he had applied under Exhibit 13 for a high load connection and it was estimated that Rs.360/- had to be paid to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board towards that connection, and since that amount was unaffordable to Complainant Suryavanshi, he had submitted another application reducing his connection load by an application Exhibit 18 and estimate was reduced to Rs.230/- as the charges for electric connection. When the accused was approached by the complainant P.W.1 he asked him to deposit Rs.7 and paise 50 at Mayani and to get the meter tested. P.W.1 deposited that amount in the Bank for Maharashtra State Electricity Board and on showing the payment receipt Exhibit 15 for an amount of Rs.7.50, the accused gave one letter to P.W.1 and directed him to go to the Sub Division Office and get the meter tested and accordingly, Suryawanshi P.W.1 got tested the meter. This was done on 14th March 1984. On the next day i.e. on 15th March 1984, according to the prosecution, the complainant Suryawanshi went to the office of the accused and demanded quotation form from the accused. It is alleged that the accused then told the complainant that he will have to deposit an amount of Rs.230/- towards the connection charges and also demanded an additional amount of Rs.200/- by way of gratification. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused told P.W.1 that the quotation form will be given only after the withdrawal of the strike period which was going on at the relevant time.

(2.) AFTER the strike was over, on 24th March 1984, P.W.1 went to the office of the accused. The accused was found present in the office. P.W.1 demanded the quotation form, and accused told him that he would give quotation form only in case he would pay him Rs.200/-. P.W.1 pleaded to the accused for reducing that amount telling him that he was a poor ex-serviceman. It is the case of the prosecution that this recourse was acceded to by the accused and told P.W.1 that he would not supply quotation form unless he would pay Rs.100/- as agreed. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused told him that he would not visit the office if he would come without money.

(3.) DURING the trial, P.W.1 Complainant Gorakhnath, P.W 2 panch Dol, P.W.3 Keshav Maruti, Executive Engineer, and P.W.4 Dole, Investigating Officer were examined. After the trial, the Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is this judgment that has been challenged before us by way of this appeal.