TUKARAM PARSHURAM MANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I. for 15 days vide judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Gadhinglaj dated 15th October 2001.

(2.) Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :-

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that at that time, it was mandatory for the claimant to be identified by the Talathi of the village or Village Development Officer and therefore, the son of the claimant viz. Vishnu had requested the appellant to accompany him to Tahsildar Office. That on 11th February 1999 the appellant had allegedly accompanied the complainant, the claimant, his mother Kashibai since an intimation was given to them on 10th February 1999. It is alleged that after appellant identified Kashibai she had received the money of Rs.5,000/- and while leaving the office of the Tahsildar the appellant demanded Rs.200/- as gratification for the work that was done by him. That there was a discussion that the appellant shall visit tea stall of Vishnu Suryawanshi and take money from him and therefore, according to prosecution, on 11th February 1999, the appellant had visited tea stall and reiterated his demand. It was then agreed that the money should be paid on 18th February 1999 at the tea stall of Vishnu Suryawanshi. On 18th February 1999, Vishnu Suryawanshi had approached the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau at Kolhapur and had disclosed about the demand of Rs.200/- by the Village Development Officer and had further informed that the money was to be paid to him at the tea stall on the same day. Anti-Corruption Bureau has recorded his report and has taken action as per Rules. Two independent public servants were summoned to act as panchas for the trap. Pre-trap panchanama was prepared and after giving instructions it was decided to lay a trap at about 8.00 pm at the tea stall. Shadow witness Sarjerao G. Shinde was in the tea stall. The appellant had reached the tea stall at about 8.00 pm. After the initial interaction demand was made from the complainant on the ground that he had done his work and Vishnu Suryawanshi was to complete his obligation. Soon thereafter, predetermined signal was given, trap was laid. Traces of anthracene powder were found on the fingers and the inner side of shirt of the pocket of the appellant. PW5- Sudhir Ramchandra Chougule had lodged a report on behalf of the State and the same is marked at Exh.39.