VISHNUPANT RAMCHANDRA NARUTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to Judgement rendered by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, in Special Case (AC) No. 2/1998, convicting appellant, named above, for offence punishable under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1)month on first count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months on the second count.

(2.) Undisputedly, the appellant was working as lineman in Telephone Exchange Sub-Division at Bhoom. He was entrusted work of installation of telephone lines of village Aasu and village Sonari, which fall under jurisdiction of Paranda Sub-office. Complainant PW5 Rashid Patel is inhabitant of village Aasu and deals in transport business. He submitted an application for new telephone connection at his residence. He deposited the required initial amount of Rs. 1000/- as first installment for telephone connection alongwith Rs. 10/- towards charges of form. The first demand note was issued to him on 14th July, 1997 and he had deposited the said amount on 28th July, 1997. The name of complainant (PW Rashid Patel) thereafter was included in the waiting list of the customers. The second advice demand note of Rs. 400/- alongwith the necessary forms in triplicate were given to the appellant by the Sub Divisional Engineer with a direction to recover the said amount from the customer (PW Rashid Patel) and, thereafter, to install the telephone line. The last date of such payment of second instalment as demanded was 8th September, 1997. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant did not issue the said second advice of demand to the customer (PW Rashid Patel). There is also no dispute about the fact that on 5th September, 1997, the appellant had visited village Aasu in connection with some official work.

(3.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for installation of the telephone connection at residence of complainant (PW Rashid Patel). Though complainant urged him to install the telephone connection, yet, he refused to do the work without payment of illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-. There was quarrel between them at village Aasu on account of non-payment of illegal gratification. He had gone to Mumbai for a short duration of about two (2) weeks thereafter. He again met the appellant at Paranda weekly bazar and requested for installation of the telephone connection. The appellant then told him that he would not accept anything less than Rs. 500/- to do the work. The complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau on 5th September, 1997 and lodged a report. A pre-trap panchanama was prepared after giving five (5) currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination smeared with anthracene powder. Two independent panchas were called at the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, in whose presence, demonstration was given as to how the tainted currency notes showed blistering of blue colour and what instructions were given to the complainant at the time of giving the said tainted currency notes to the complainant. The complainant and one of the panch witnesses went to the office of the Telephone Exchange at Paranda, but then the appellant was not present there. They asked PW Kutub Saheb who is also a lineman attached to the said Telephone Exchange and was present in the office, as to where was the appellant. Then, PW Kutub Saheb informed them that he had gone to village Aasu. By that time, PW Kutub Saheb received a telephone call of the appellant. The appellant asked PW Kutub Saheb as to whether anyone had come in the office to meet him. Then, PW Kutub Saheb told him that two (2) persons had been to the office to see him. The appellant instructed PW Kutub Saheb to handover the telephone to that person. He had telephonic conversation with the complainant. He assured the complainant to meet near the Court premises at Paranda. A trap was laid in front of a hotel called "Hotel Shivneri", situated opposite to the Court premises of Paranda. The complainant alongwith panch witness awaited in front of the said Hotel, whereas the other party members of the Anti Corruption Bureau and another panch awaited in a nearby hotel. As assured, the appellant reached near the Court premises at about 3 p.m. The complainant called him inside the hotel. They sat at a table. The demand for Rs. 500/- was repeated by the appellant in front of the panch witness. The complainant - PW Rashid Patel gave five (5) tainted currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination to the appellant. The bribe money was accepted by the appellant and the tainted currency notes were placed in shirt's pocket. The complainant gave signal to the members of the raiding party. Immediately, Dy.S.P. Ambegaonkar, his staff members and another panch reached the spot. Both hands of the appellant were firmly held and were examined under ultra violet lamp. The fingers of his right hand indicated blue blisters and so also his shirt pocket was found to bear blisters of blue colour. The tainted currency notes were seized alongwith other articles found with him. A post-trap panchanama was drawn then and there. The relevant investigation papers and other material documents were forwarded to the competent authority, namely, District Engineer of Telecom, Osmanabad. He gave sanction to prosecute the appellant. The appellant was accordingly prosecuted.