SUKHDEO LAXMAN PARALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 17-09-2003 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Pusad (trial Court) in Special Case No.3 of 1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 7, 13 (i) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short, 'Act of 1988'] and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months respectively for conviction under the said provisions. The wife of the appellant had been arrayed as accused no.2 in the present case, but, she was acquitted by the trial Court.

(2.) The appellant was working as 'Talathi' of village Phulumri, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal at the time of incident. The complainant herein, one Narayan Rathod (PW-1), claimed that he had approached the appellant for copies of 7/12 extracts, copies of mutation and heir certificate. The reason why the said complainant was required to approach the appellant was that he was holding a Power of Attorney from one Panchfula, who was the daughter of Dayaram Rathod and who claimed that she along with her sisters Shobha and Narmada had inherited fields belonging to the said Dayaram Rathod. It was claimed by the said Panchafula that the husband of Shobha (one of the sisters) had been looking after the aforesaid fields of Dayaram Rathod and that he had sold some of the fields. Due to this, the said Panchafula required the aforesaid documents, for which she had executed Power of Attorney dated 16-06-1998, in favour of complainant Narayan (PW-1) who was her brother-in-law.

(3.) The complainant Narayan (PW-1) claimed that when he approached the appellant for copies of the aforesaid documents, the appellant demanded Rs. 200/-, which the complainant gave unwillingly. It was claimed that the appellant gave four copies of 7/12 extracts and stated that the copies of mutation were to be obtained from Manora and that when the complainant went to the house of appellant on 15-07-1998, the appellant said that for the copies of mutation and heir certificate further amount of Rs. 200/- was required and that unless the amount was paid the work of the complainant would not be done. The complainant claimed that unwillingly he agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 200/- to the appellant, upon which the appellant told the complainant that he would give the said copies on 16-07-1998 at 4.00 pm.