Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- The appellant, Shripad Shivram Kulkarni (original accused 1) and Babulal Faras (original accused 2) were both working as Maintenance Surveyors in the same Office under the City Survey officer, Kolhapur. Both were prosecuted under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 161 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Special Judge, Kolhapur.

2. The prosecution case was that house bearing No. C.T.S. 2340, A ward, Kolhapur was standing in the name of the father of one Madhav. Madhav submitted an application (Ex. 14), dated August 18, 1971, to the City Survey Officer, requesting that his name be substituted in place of his father. At the relevant time, the appellant was in charge of A Ward, while Faras was in charge of another Ward. After receiving the application, the City Survey Officer (P. W. 5) initialled it and directed the complainant to take it to the appellant. Accordingly, Madhav accompanied by his maternal uncle (P. W. 2) approached the appellant who was then sitting in a hall in which the other Maintenance Surveyors, including Faras, and Clerks were working at different tables. The complainant first enquired from Faras as to whom the application should be handed over. Faras pointed out the appellant who was sitting behind the table opposite to his table. Madhav then handed over the application (Ex. 14) to the appellant who read the application and told Madhav that the Khata of the property concerned will be transferred in his name at the earliest. The appellant then asked Madhav to meet Faras adding that the latter would tell Madhav what was to be done. Madhav and his uncle then again approached Faras, accused 2, and requested the latter to do the needful regarding the change of the entry of the property in his name. Accused 2 told Madhav that he would do it provided Madhav paid him Rs. 200 within two days. Madhav asked him why so much money was required. The accused explained that out of the amount of Rs. 200, Rs. 100 were to be paid to Saheb, i. e. the City Survey Officer, Rs. 50 to the appellant and the balance of Rs. 50 was for accused 2 himself. Accused 2 then asked Madhav to arrange for the payment of the amount. Madhav informed him that he would arrange for the money and went away.

3. On October 22, 1971, Madhav again went to the City Survey Office and met and asked the appellant about the fate of his application. Appellant then asked Madhav as to what the latter had done about the matter apprised by Faras. Madhav told him that he was, not able to pay him Rs. 200 and that at the most he would be able to pay a small amount of Rs. 5 to Rs. 25. Appellant then told Madhav that other matters have been pending in the Office for two to three years and he would consider Madhavs case as per serial order. Madhav then went to the City Survey Officer, who called the appellant into his office room and asked him to make out the application, issue notices to the concerned persons and complete the case.

4. As no progress was being made by the appellant, Madhav on October 29, 1971, again went to the City Survey Office and met the appellant and enquired about the progress of his application. The appellant told Madhav that the latter should see him after the notices had been issued.

5. On November 5, 1971, Madhav again went to see the City Survey Officer. He was waiting for him in the Verandah when Faras accused 2 called and asked him to take his seat on a nearby stool. Faras then asked Madhav whether he had arranged for the money. Madhav told him that he was unable to pay that much amount. Accused 2 then informed Madhav that his work would not be done unless he arranged payment of Rs. 125 at least. Accused 2 assured Madhav that if the latter paid that much amount, the work would be done within two days. At that time, the appellant Kulkarni was sitting behind his table within the hearing range of Madhav. Madhav then told accused 2 that he would make nec