Judgment

OZA, J.:- These two appeals arise out of the conviction of the two appellants by learned Special Judge, Kolhapur wherein appellant accused No. 1 Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe, a Head-Constable of Police was convicted under S. 161, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and fine of Rs. 100/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month whereas accuseed No. 2 Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje, a Constable of Police was convicted under S. 165-A, I.P.C. and S. 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence under S. 165-A, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of fine further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Special Judge, Kolhapur in Special Case No. 2 of 1975 and on appeal the High Court of Bombay confirmed the conviction and sentence so far as accused No. 1 the Head Constable is concerned and confirmed the conviction and sentence of accused No. 2 under S. 165-A but modified the sentence under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and fine of Rs. 100/ - in default of fine further imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution case was that the complainant one Pandurang Narayan Bhosale at the relevant time was a Mukadam serving in the Municipal Corporation at Kolhapur. As a Mukadam he had to supervise the work of cleaning carried out by the lady sweepers in the town. One of such in his charge was Laxmibai Rajaram. Some incident is alleged to have taken place between this complainant Pandurang and the said sweeper Laxmibai. As a result of which on 30-3-1975 Laxmi Bais husband filed an application with the Laxmipur Police Station alleging that Pandurang had enticed away his wife Laxmi Bai. This application was inquired into by Head Constable Kamble of the Laxmipur Police Station. Kamble recorded the statement of Rajaram but since Pandurang was residing within the jurisdiction of Juna Rajwada Police Station in Kolhapur City this application of Rajaram was forwarded to the said Police Station for recording the statement of Pandurang. This application, which is Ex. 24, was received in Juna Rajwada Police Station on 14-7-75. At that time PW 8 Ramchandra Muradur was the Police Inspector in charge of the said Police Station. On receipt of the aforesaid application, it was entrusted to accused No. 1 who was a Head Constable attached to the Police 289 Station for the purpose of recording the statement of Pandurang. At that time accused No. 2 was a Constable attached to the said Police Station. Admittedly he was one amongst many at the Police Station. On 25-11-75 it is alleged that Pandurang went to Juna Rajwada Police Station where his statement was recorded by accused No.1. It is alleged that when he was coming out he asked accused No. 2 who was known to him, according to his own version, whether he could go and it is said that accused No. 2 asked accused No.1 whether he could go and accused No.1 told him that he could go and saying this accused No.1 went inside the Police Station. It is alleged that thereafter accused No. 2 told Pandurang that accused No.1 was demanding Rs. 200/- to compromise the matter and to file the application of Rajaram and that he has asked Pandurang to see accused No.1 and settle with him. Pandurang told him that he did not have so much of money but he would see accused No.1 later.

3. It is alleged that on 29-11-75 i.e. four days after this incident on 25-11-75 Pandurang went to the house of accused No.1 in the morning and enquired from him as to what has happened to his work. It is alleged by Pandurang that accused No.1 had demanded Rs. 200/- and told him that if he pays the amount the application of Rajaram will be filed and when Pandurang expressed his inability to pay Rs. 200/ - the demand was reduced to Rs. 1