PRAKASH BABULAL PARDESHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts:

(2.) We may touch upon the facts briefly. The informant is an Architect. In 2010 he undertook the work of a private limited company, said to be a multi-national establishment. The Architect's duty was to prepare plans, submit them to the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), Nashik, for approval and, thereafter, to the Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Nashik.

(3.) From the pleadings I gather when the plans were submitted for the appellant's approval, he did nothing for two months. During that period the informant met the appellant two or three times. Eventually, he received a call from one Chavan, whose name and identity are disputed, though. Chavan wanted the architect to go and meet the appellant on 11th August 2010. Ostensibly, Chavan is an employee in the appellant's department. As required, the architect met the appellant on that day; he was informed that the work was 'big' and that he should pay Rs.10,000/-. Of course, the architect, then, narrates the whole process of how he was compelled to meet the demand.