LAWS(BOM)-2019-2-139

RAMDAS WAMAN TADGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 22, 2019
Ramdas Waman Tadge Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The Appellant herein is convicted vide judgment and order dated 27.5.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 01 of 2008 for the offence punishable under section 7, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default, to suffer R.I. for two months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(1) (d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default, to suffer R.I. for two months. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as under.

(2.) The Appellant herein was working as a clerk in the office of District Sub- Auditor and in the year 2006, he holding charge as Auditor and Senior Clerk at the office of Co-operative Society at Malegaon. That on 25.7.2006, one Mr. Sunil Govind Bankar, who was serving with Sonaj Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., situated at Malegaon, lodged a report with the Anti Corruption Bureau at Nashik (for short 'the ACB') contending therein that the accounts of his office were being audited.

(3.) The ACB had decided to lay a trap and had called upon two public servants to act as panchas at the time of trap. A pre-trap panchnama was conducted. The raiding party had been to the office. On 25th July, 2006, the complainant Mr. Bankar along with a panch Mr. Saundane had been to the office premises of the auditor which was situated at Market Yard. They had been to the office of Accused No.1 Mr. Kasar. The complainant had requested the auditor to prepare the audit report properly. Thereafter, Mr. Kasar had questioned as to whether he is ready to fulfill the demand. He had received the answer in the affirmative. In the meanwhile, Accused No.2 i.e. the present Appellant had been to the office. Mr. Kasar had informed the complainant to hand over the said amount to the Appellant. The Appellant had accepted the said amount, retained it and placed it in his hip pocket of the pant. Soon thereafter, the complainant had given the pre-determined signal. The raiding party had apprehended both the accused persons. The statement of the panch was recorded. The post trap panchnama was prepared and, thereafter, PW5 had lodged a report on behalf of the State. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 3043 of 2006 was registered at the police station. After investigation and after receipt of the sanction to prosecute by the appropriate authority, the charge-sheet was filed. The prosecution examined six witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.