BASAVRAJ MALAKAPPA KOLI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocate Mrs. Anita Agarwal, for the accused/appellant and learned A.P.P. Shri D.P. Adsule, for the State/Respondents. This is an appeal filed by the accused/appellant against his conviction under sections 161, 218, 466, 471 and 477 -A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. This accused/appellant Basavraj Koli was the Sub -Registrar working at Indapur and he was accused No. 1 in the trial. There was one other accused facing same trial alongwith him but he was acquitted by the Trial Court of all the offences. The complainant in this case was one Salim Ahmed Bhagwan who had sold his 16 gunthas land for Rs. 14000/ - to one Abubakar Godabhai Bhagwan. Subsequently, complainant Salim Bhagwan agreed to get back his land from Abubakar for Rs. 22000/ - on a condition that the complainant bears the expenses of registration of the documents. On 19.1.1988 the complainant went to the office of the accused and met accused No. 1 Jadhav and inquired about the probable expenses. Accused No. 2 who was also working in the same office told him that apart from the expenses of the stamp duty, complainant will have to pay Rs. 470/ - which include payment to accused No. 1. Upon insistence of the complainant original accused No. 2 gave details of the expenses on a chit. The complainant got confirmation about the expenses from the present accused and he went to the office of A.C.B., Pune on 21.1.1988, lodged his complaint about the demand for gratification, pursuant to which a trap was arranged and on complainant's giving Rs. 430/ - to the present accused, the same was recovered alongwith important documents viz. copy of sale deed between the complainant and Abubakar for Rs. 22000/ -, certain receipts, copy of Index II application etc. Both, the present accused as well as accused No. 2 were prosecuted under different provisions of Indian Penal Code and provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting the bribe. The said prosecution ended in conviction which is challenged in the present appeal. The defence of the accused is that he never demanded any bribe or illegal gratification from the complainant. Secondly, according to him, from out of the amount of Rs. 430/ - given by the complainant, the present accused had in his official capacity and in the discharge of his official duty issued receipt for Rs. 236/ - and amount of Rs. 220/ - (Rs. 6/ - short of this amount) was taken from the complainant for his Index II application. According to the defence, the documents of the prosecution themselves support the defence of the accused, and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal.

(2.) MRS . Agarwal, counsel for the accused/appellant contended that sanction in this case was granted without application of mind, and therefore, on that count also the accused was entitled for acquittal.

(3.) IT is accepted principle of Criminal Law that the accused does not have to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt, but if he succeeds in making inrods in the prosecution case to make the entire case suspicious then he is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Keeping this principle in mind, evidence of the prosecution is required to be scrutinised.