MALHARI LAXMAN GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order of conviction and sentence dated 19th September 1990 passed by the learned Special Judge, Thane, in Special Case No.11 of 1985, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellants-accused for offences punishable under section 161 and section 165-A I.P.C. and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced accused no.1 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 offence punishable under section 161 I.P.C. and accused nos.2 & 3 to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three weeks for offence punishable under section 165-A I.P.C. and sentenced appellant nos.1 to 3 to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief is that appellant no.1 was working as superintendent with Kalyan Municipal Corporation in its Water Works and Supply Department. Appellant no.2 was working as a clerk and appellant no.3 was working as a peon in the same department. It is alleged that for getting water connection, the complainant Shivaji Namdeo Jadhar approached appellant no.1 who demanded Rs.200/- for the said connection. The complainant thereafter approached the office of A.C.B. and lodged his complaint on 25-3-1985. A raid was accordingly arranged. On 26-3-1985 the complainant was given marked two currency notes of Rs.100/- each, in all Rs.200/- and the same were kept in an envelope, and thereafter the raiding party proceeded to the office where the appellants-accused were working. After reaching near the office, the raiding party waited outside and the complainant and one panch witness went inside the office and met appellant no.1 and offered the said amount for doing complainant's work, whereupon appellant no.1 asked the complainant to contact appellant no.2, who in turn, asked the complainant to give the amount to appellant no.3 and accordingly the packet containing the amount was given to appellant no.3 who accepted the said packet containing the amount. Immediately thereafter the complainant gave signal to the raiding party, whereupon the raiding party rushed inside the office and on searching Appellant no.3, the packet containing marked currency notes of Rs.100/- (two in number) was found which was taken charge of under a panchanama. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, all the three appellants were apprehended and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court against the appellants-accused both under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(3.) HEARD Mr. R.M.Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellants-accused. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants-accused that though demand was alleged to have been made by appellant no.1, actually he had not accepted the bribe amount. According to the prosecution, appellant no.1 asked the complainant to approach appellant no.2 and give him the amount and when the complainant approached appellant no.2, he asked the complainant to give the amount to appellant no.3 and it is he, appellant no.3, who has actually accepted the packet containing the bribe amount. This means that, appellant no.3 accepted the amount on instructions from his superior officers without knowing anything about the transaction. Even appellant no.2 has not accepted the bribe amount. The learned Counsel has, therefore, submitted that on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is not possible to hold the appellant-accused guilty for the offences with which they have been charged. He, therefore, urged that the appellants are entitled for a clean acquittal.