STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMDAS SHANKAR KURLEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the Respondents Ramdas Shankar Kurlekar (Accused No. 1) and Bhalchandra Dattatraya Kasodkar (Accused No. 2) by the impugned order dated 8th and 9th of August 1984 by Special Case No. 29 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Greater Bombay. The respondent No. 1 was charged for the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and under Section 161 of the I. P. C. and respondent No. 2 was charged for the offences under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and Section 109 and 265-A read with Section 161 of the I. P. C.

(2.) THE charge against the first respondent in short was that while he was employed as Chief Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Bombay Division, Bombay, was holding the charge of the post of Assistant Commissioner (advertisement) at Head quarters, Bombay, attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 2000/- and accepted the sum of Rs. 1500/- on 8-8-1997 and 29-8-1977 as part payment through respondent No. 2 as gratification other than legal remuneration, for showing a favour or disfavour in exercise of official function to one Mr. Malhotra in the matter of prosecution against Smt. Malhotra under the provisions of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 vide C. R. No. 71/77 for allegedly releasing leaflets containing objectionable matter used by Smt. Malhotra and on 3-10-1977 attempted to obtain balance of Rs. 500/- through the respondent No. 2.

(3.) THE allegation against the respondent No. 2 in short was that while he was employed as Drug Inspector, Intelligence Branch, Food and Drug Administration, Bombay Division attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 2000/- and accepted the amount of Rs. 2000/- in all in the aforesaid dates as part payment for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive to do official acts or showing favour in the official function of respondent No. 1, in the matter or prosecution against Smt. Malhotra wife of Mr. Malhotra, and aided and abetted the respondent No. 1 to commit the offences referred to above.