RAJU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA`

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has approached this court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalna, dated 1st April, 2004, thereby convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, R.I. for one month, on each count.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that, complainant Vijay Vispute, was running the goldsmith business since 1979, for which purpose the licence under the Weights and Measures Act, is required. It is the prosecution case that for the said purpose, the balance and weights are to be checked every year and every year the stamping is to be renewed. It is the case of the complainant that certain balance and weights were stamped and a certificate to that effect was received by the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the person who had handed over the certificate also demanded Rs. 600 towards stamping charges. It is the contention of the complainant that after a period of 2 days, one person from Aurangabad visited the shop and disclosed his identity that he was working as Inspector in Legal Metrology, Jalna.

(3.) It is the contention of the complainant that the accused disclosed that he had come to the shop of the complainant to check the balance. The complainant states that thereafter he had put the balance before the accused. After verifying the balance, he opined that the balance is OK and he demanded Rs.600 towards the fees for checking the balance. The complainant further states that he became suspicious since the company person had disclosed the charges as Rs.120. It is further the case of the complainant that since the complainant was not in a position to pay the charges on that day, the accused told him to visit the office any time after bringing Rs. 600 and he will do the stamping. It is the prosecution case that since the complainant was not willing to make payment, he lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged with the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 8th February, 1999. It is the prosecution case that a trap was conducted on 8th February and 9th February, 1999. The same was unsuccessful and as such, again a trap was arranged on 15th February,1999.