Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1990. Case: Suryabhan Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1990 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S. V. Manohar, Advs. and For Respondents: S. B. Wahane, A.P.P., Advs. |
| Judges | R. M. Lodha, J. |
| Issue | Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) - Sections 13(c) (d) (2), 7, 20; Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 161 |
| Citation | 1995 CriLJ 107 |
| Judgement Date | September 08, 1994 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
The accused-appellant Suryabhan Shrawan Sawaitul, Patwari, who has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the P.C. Act") has filed the present appear dis satisfied with the judgment of the Special Judge, Nagpur, passed on 28-2-1990 in Special Case No. 7 of 1987 (State of Maharashtra v. Suryabhan). By the said judgment the Special Judge, Nagpur, on Convicting of the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences, has sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to stiffer S.I. for 15 days on each count. The substantive sentence has been ordered to run concurrently by the Special Judge, Nagpur.
-
The demand of Rs. 200/- by the accused- appellant from Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole who was offered for and on behalf of Shankar Pandurang Ingole as bribe for effecting mutation in the revenue record in favour of the said Shankar Pandurang Ingole, put the accused-appellant for trial for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act corre sponding to Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short "the Old P.C. Act"), The accused-appellant was charged to the effect that he being a Patwari of village Malewada in Bhiwapur Tahsil, District Nagpur, i.e. a public servant, demanded and accepted Rs. 200/- on 16-5-1986 at about 4.45 p.m. at Bhiwapur from Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole as gratification other than legal remunera tion as a motive or reward for doing an official act, which he was otherwise and legally entitled for making entries in the mutation register in favour of Shankar Pandurang Ingole and his brother in respect of the field survey Nos. 199/1, 199/2, 199/3 of Malewada, which stood in the name of their mother as per the will made by the father of Shankar Pandurang Ingole and, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act corresponding to Section 161 of Indian Penal Code. The accused appellant was also charged to the effect that he being the Patwari of the said village i.e. the public servant, on 16 -5-1986 at about 4.45 p.m. at Bhiwapur obtained for himself pecuniary advantage of Rs. 200/ - from Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole by abusing his legal position as a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, and thereby commit ted an offence punishable under Section 13(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act corre sponding to Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the old P.C. Act.
-
The prosecution case is that on 16-5-1986 Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole (P.W. 1) lodged a complaint (Exh. 14) in Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. It is alleged in the said complaint that he resides at Malewada and carries on agricultural operations. Shankar Pandurang Ingole happens to be his cousin and he is posted at Nagpur. He supervises the agricultural land of Shankar Ingole situated at Malewada and manages the affairs in connection thereof. The father of Shankar, Pandurang Zibal Ingole, bequeathed his agricul tural land to Bhigirathibai i.e. the mother of Shankar Ingole, who also died somewhere in the year 1983 and after her death the said land was to be mutated in favour of Shankar Ingole and his three brothers. Shankar Ingole came to Malewada and asked them to request the Patwari of Malewada for taking steps in effecting the muta tion of the said agricultural lands in his name. In the month of March 1986 Shankar again came to Malewada and he and the complainant went to the accused-appellant and both of them met the accused-appellant. At that time Shankar Ingole requested the accused to effect mutation in his name and the name of his two brothers after the death of his mother Bhagirathibai. The will of Smt. Bhagirathiabi had already been handed over to the appellant-accused by the complainant prior to that. According to the complainant, the ac cused-appellant told him and Shankar that the mutation cannot be effected free of cost and demanded the bribe of Rs. 200/- and said that if the said amount was not paid to him, he would not carry on the mutation. Both of them returned and Shankar told the complainant that he should keep in touch with the accused and get the work done. On 13-5-1986 when the accused came to Malewada, the complainant met him and re quested him to do the mutation work of Shankar and on that the accused reminded him of Rs. 200/- for effecting the work. Then the complainant told the accused that Rs. 200/- was a big amount, but the accused-appellant insisted that he would not accept even one paisa less than Rs. 200/-. He then told him that he would bring the amount within a day or two after meeting Shankar. The accused-appellant told him that he would not come to Malewada now, and if he has to get the work done, then he has to pay the amount at Tahsil Office or at his residence. The complainant then alleged that he assured him that he would bring and pay the said amount till noon of 16-5-1986. He met his cousin Shankar Ingole and told him the aforesaid facts. He and Shankar then both decided that a complaints be lodged with the Anti-Corruption Department instead of giving the amount of Rs. 200/- to the accused- appellant as a bribe. In this view, Rs. 200/- was deposited with the Anti-Corruption Department by Madhukar Ingole.
-
Thereafter a trap was laid by Abdul Razzak (P.W. 12), Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. According to the prosecution, after making full preparation for the trap the raiding party reached Bhiwapur at about 4.00 p.m. The complainant Madhukar and Daulat Lanjewar (P.W. 2) went to the house of the accused and the raiding party concealed itself at some distance. On getting a signal from the complainant, the raiding party went to the house of the accused and P.W. 12 Abdul Razzak, P.I., Anti-Corruption Bureau introduced himself to the accused and showed his identity card. P.W. 12 interrogated the accused and then directed the Police Constable Ashok to prepare the solution of sodium carbonate, which he accordingly prepared in a glass. Except the complainant Madhukar, all the members of the raiding party were asked to dip their fingers in that glass. The solution had not changed its colour and it was thrown away. A fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared through the Police Constable Ashok and then the accused was asked to deep the fingers of his right hand in the solution of sodium carbonate and the solution changed its colour and became purple. Again the fresh solu tion of sodium carbonate was prepared through the Police Constable Ashok and the accused was asked to deep the fingers of his left hand in the said solution. This time also the solution turned purple. Then different bottles were prepared from the said solution and sealed in presence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial