VIJAY PARVATRAO SALUNKHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/original accused herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer six months and one year rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and three months respectively. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) The appellant/accused has expired on 28 th March 2011, as he was diagnosed with HIV+ve. The appeal is being prosecuted by the wife of the appellant/accused, who has also been diagnosed with HIV+ve.

(3.) Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:- The appellant/accused was working as Police Constable (Traffic Branch), Hadapsar Police Station, Pune. On 12 th August 2003, Malaba Rangrao Chinchole filed a written report to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune alleging therein that he is the owner of three wheeler Tempo, bearing RTO registration number MH-14 6974. He is having driving licence number 5798/15371. That on 11th August 2003, he was carrying the goods i.e. 6 TV sets to be delivered from Fursungi godown to Thermax Chowk. When he reached Hadapsar Chowk, the appellant/accused had stopped his vehicle and had demanded his licence and other papers. It was seen that the passing limit of Tempo had expired 5 days ago. The appellant-accused had demanded Rs.3,200/- towards fine and he had retained the papers of vehicle including passing certificate, insurance certificate and fitness certificate and also asked the complainant to leave his tempo at the spot. The appellant-accused was not willing to reduce the amount. Thereafter the appellant- accused had reduced the amount of Rs.2,000/- for releasing the vehicle but since the complainant had expressed his inability, the appellant-accused had agreed to accept Rs.500/- and intimated the complainant that on receipt of the said amount, he would return his vehicle. He had agreed to pay money at about 5.00 pm. He had approached Anti Corruption Bureau. The Anti Corruption Bureau had reduced his report into writing and had agreed to lay a trap on the next day. Accordingly, pre-trap panchanama was conducted on 11 th itself and thereafter on the second day, a trap was laid. The complainant had met the appellant/accused. They had been to Gajendra Hotel. The complainant had allegedly demanded the licence. The appellant- accused enquired as to whether the agreed amount was brought. Upon receiving the answer in the affirmative, the complainant had handed over the tainted notes to the appellant- accused, which he had accepted and placed in left side pocket of his shirt and soon thereafter, the Anti Corruption Bureau had laid the trap. After the trap had succeeded, Nandkumar Jaywant Pinjan, Police Inspector of Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune had lodged a report on behalf of the State.