KASHINATH SHIRU AHIRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal calls-in-question the legality and propriety of the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence rendered by the learned Special Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No. 92 of 1999 dated 09-02-2003. The appellant-accused convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988") and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has also convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case sans unnecessary factual aspects in brief is that, the appellant-accused at the relevant time was the public servant, employed as maintenance surveyor in the office of Land Record, Sindkheda District Dhule. It has been alleged that the complainant Mr.Shaligram Patil was indulging in the business of flour mill since 1979 to 1995 at village Virdel, Taluka Sindkheda. But, thereafter, he stopped the business of flour mill and returned to his native at Murukwade. However, in the year 1979, he had purchased the house property No. 407 admeasuring 9.14 X 4.80 meter area of his flour mill from owner Rama S/o Daulat Choudhary by registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 2000/. But, he did not get mutated his name in the documents of office of land record after registration of sale deed. Therefore, on 03-04-1998 he visited to the office of Land Record to get "Sanad" of house property No. 407 located at village Virdel from the Office of Land Record in his favour. He met with the appellant- accused Mr. Ahire in the Office and given all the relevant documents for mutation of his name in the official record. But, appellant­accused made demand of Rs. 300/ as bribe and asked the complainant to bring the original owner Rama Chaudhary for recording his statement in the Office. After about 15 days, the complainant and original owner of house No. 407, visited to the appellant-accused in the office. The statement of owner Mr.Rama Chaudhary was recorded by the accused. Thereafter, the complainant was advised to see Mr.Holey, superior of appellant-accused (i.e. original accused No. 2 who has been acquitted by trial Court from charges of bribery in this case.) But, the Superior Officer Mr.Holey was not available in the office. Therefore, again the complainant came to the office of appellant-accused on 27-04-1988 and met with Mr. Holey, Assistant Taluka Inspector, Land Record, Sindhkheda. He placed demand of bribe of Rs.300/- for showing favour to the complainant. After negotiation, the complainant prepared himself to give bribe of Rs.300/- to the appellant-accused Mr.Ahire and his superior Officer Mr.Holey. It was agreed to accept the bribe of Rs.300/- from complainant on 06-05-1998 in the Office at Sindhkhed. The complainant Mr.Shaligram Patil was not willing to pay the bribe, therefore, he approached to ACB Sleuth, Dhule and filed the complaint. The Investigating Officer (IO) Mr.Khairnar, Deputy Superintendent of Police procured presence of two panch witnesses for further process. They both were appraised about the demand of bribe and its acceptance on 06-05-1998 by the appellant-accused in the Office. Thereafter, the formalities of pre-trap panchnama were completed and all the members of raiding party including complainant Mr.Shaligram Patil, etc. started proceeding towards Office of Land Record of the accused at Shindkheda in Police vehicle. The trap was laid and appellant-accused Mr.Ahire was caught raid handed while accepting the bribe amount from the complainant. The detail post-trap panchnama was drawn in presence of panchas. IO recorded statement of appellant- accused for accepting the tainted currency notes as bribe from complainant. Thereafter, IO Mr. Khairnar lodged the complaint for penal action against the appellant-accused.

(3.) Pursuant to First Information Report (FIR) of Police Personnel, Dy.S.P. Mr. Khairnar, the Police of Sindhkheda Police Station registered the Crime No.3012 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and set the penal law in motion. IO recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. He collected relevant documents. During the investigation, it was transpired that Mr.Holey, Assistant Inspector of Land Record, superior of appellant-accused had an involvement into the crime. Therefore, IO obtained sanction from concerned competent authority for prosecution against both the appellant-accused and his superior Mr.Holey. After completion of investigation, IO filed charge- sheet against both of them for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 bearing Special Case No. 92 of 1999. The learned Special Judge framed the charges against both the accused i.e. present appellant and his Superior Officer Shri Holey, Assistant Inspector of Land Record, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The prosecution adduced the evidence of in all five witnesses to prove the charges against accused. The statement of both the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. were recorded by learned trial Court. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court held the appellant- accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and imposed the resultant sentence as indicated above. However, the learned Special Judge simultaneously observed that, the evidence adduced on record on behalf of prosecution against so called accused No. 2 Mr. Holey, Assistant Inspector of Land Record, is not sufficient to bring home his guilt within the purview of law. Therefore, the learned trial Court extended the benefit of doubt in the prosecution case and exonerated the accused No.2-Mr. Holey from the charges pitted against him. Albeit, validity and legality of acquittal of accused No. 2 ­ Mr Holey is not put into controversy on behalf of prosecution -State of Maharashtra. However, the impugned judgment of conviction and resultant sentence imposed on the appellant-accused by the learned trial Court is the subject-matter of present appeal.