WAMAN S/O MALHARI JAMBHULKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, NAGPUR, DISTRICT NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.03.2003 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Under Prevention of Corruption Act) and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (Trial Court) in Special Criminal Case No.19 of 1990, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for periods of six months and one year on the two counts and also to pay fine of Rs.500/ on each count.

(2.) At the relevant time, the appellant was working as a Nazul Surveyor in the City Survey Office at Nagpur. The case of the complainant (PW1) was that he had submitted an application to the said office on 06.11989 for mutation in respect of the house property owned by his father and also for issuance of the property card to him. As the said application was being processed, the complainant (PW1) went to meet the appellant, who asked him to deposit Rs.29/ towards fees for obtaining the copy of "Sanad", which the complainant (PW1) did in the name of his father. It has came on record that the appellant had issued a receipt for the said amount but, he demanded a sum of Rs.500/ from the complainant (PW1) for issuance of the property card. Since the complainant (PW1) stated that he could not afford to pay the said amount, it was allegedly agreed that the appellant would take an amount of Rs.100/ for ensuring that the property card was delivered to the complainant (PW1). It was further claimed that the complainant (PW1) again visited the office of the appellant on 25.01.1990, when the aforesaid demand of Rs.100/ was reiterated by the appellant and the complainant (PW1) was asked to come to the office on 29.01.1990. According to the complainant (PW1), as the appellant was not available in his office on 29.01.1990, he visited the office on 31.01.1990, when the demand was again repeated by the appellant and it was agreed that the complainant (PW1) would arrange for the amount on 01.01990. On this basis, the complainant (PW1) approached the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur and lodged the written complaint on the basis of which, the Investigating Officer (PW4) arranged for the trap to be executed against the appellant. Two panchas were arranged and other procedures necessary for execution of the trap were undertaken.

(3.) On 01.02.1990, the complainant (PW1) and panch no.1 (shadow witness), i.e. PW2, went to the office of the appellant and when the appellant asked as to whether the complainant (PW1) had brought the amount, the said amount was handed over to the appellant, who took it and after counting the same with both hands, he put the same in the pocket of his pant. Thereafter, upon a predecided signal being given to the raiding party, which included Investigating Officer (PW4), the appellant was apprehended. Upon sodium carbonate solution being poured on the hands of the appellant, his fingers turned violet, thereby showing that he had indeed handled the currency notes handed over by the complainant (PW1) to him. On this basis, offences under the aforesaid Act were registered against the appellant and he was prosecuted.