LAWS(MPH)-2005-9-35

SHANTARAM SOMWANSHIMANIKLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On September 26, 2005
SHANTARAM SOMWANSHIMANIKLAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHDELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have preferred these two appeals against the udgment of conviction dated 7-5-1990 passed by the Special Judge, Jabalpur, in Special Case No. 4 of 1981. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, this judgment shall govern the disposal of both the appeals.

(2.) APPELLANT Shantaram Somwanshi has been convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) and Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 161 and 120-B of IPC and sentenced to R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 50/- on each count. In default of payment of fine one month's further R. I. for one month on each count. Appellant No. 2, Maniklal has also been convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B, 161 and 165 of IPC and has been sentenced to R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 50/- on each count. In default of payment of fine R. I. for one month on each count. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(3.) IN brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that appellant Shantaram functioned as Station Health Inspector in Central Railway, Jabalpur, since 27-8-1979. Appellant Maniklal functioned as a Mukaddam in Central Railway and was posted at Railway Station Jabalpur under S. D. Somwanshi since 1-3-1979. While functioning as such the appellant Shantaram habitually accepted an amount of Rs. 1/- per day from every casual sweeper working under him as a motive for providing them job of casual sweeper working under him as a motive for providing them job of casual sweeper at the Railway Station Jabalpur. Thus, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant he obtained for himself pecuniary advantage as aforesaid. It is also alleged that appellant Maniklal acting under the appellant Shantaram as Mukaddam also used to accept the illegal gratification from casual sweepers on behalf of the appellant Shantaram.