A Sub-Divisional Officer, who is subordinate to the Collector, cannot grant sanction for prosecution of a Talathi appointed by the Collector, as this would violate the constitutional protection under Article 311(1) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT - Waikar M.R., J. : - Appellant Bhaurao who was working as a Talathi having been convicted of the offence punishable under section 161 of the

Indian Penal Code and section 5(1), (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, has preferred the present appeal.

2. It is common ground that the appellant at the relevant time was, working as a Talathi or a Patwari at village Tiwari, district Yavatmal. Kuwarsing (P.W. 1), Jemla (P.W. 4) and one Sakru owned lands at village

Tiwari. Kuwarsing and Sakru wanted to sink wells in their fields, while Jemla wanted to instal an oil engine on his existing well. They required

loan from Land Development Bank, Digras and for that purpose they required copies of crop-statements, Record of rights and a certificate from the Patwari.

3. The prosecution alleged that these three persons had approached

this appellant and had furnished him with blank forms required for preparation of the above documents. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 25 from each of them for supply of these documents to them.

4. It was then alleged that on second occasion Kuwarsing (P.W. 1) and Jemla (P.W. 4) approached the appellant when he again made a demand for an amount of Rs. 25 from each of them and when they expressed their inability the appellant told them that they may colIect the amount and meet him at Digras weekly bazar on 31-1-1976 (Saturday). He further told them that if for any reason he failed to attend the weekly bazar they should see him at his residence at Tiwari. On returning to their village Kuwarsing and Jemla decided to inform the Anti-Corruption department and accordingly Kuwarsing went to Yavatmal on 31-1-1976 and lodged his complaint with Police Sub-Inspector Choudhari (P.W. 8). Kuwarsing had carried with him a sum of Rs. 50 for himself and for Jemla. Choudhary sent a wireless message to Deputy Superintendent of Police A.C.B., Nagpur to come to Yavatmal for the trap and produced Kuwarsing before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, with an application for permission to make an investigation into his complaint. The learned Magistrate accorded the necessary permission (Ex. 43) to Police Sub-Inspector Choudhary. Choudhary then requisitioned the services of two Panchas, namely, Sorte (P.W. 3) and one Kashattiwar. The currency notes of Rs. 50 were produced by Kuwarsing, the necessary test with the help of phenolphthlein powder necessary for the execution of such trap was ask and the party went to Digras in a jeep. As the appellant was not found in Digras weekly bazar, the party went to village Tiwari. Kuwarsing and Pauch Sorte went to the house of the appellant and learnt from his son, who was playing with other children infront of the house, that the appellant was taking meals. After some time the appellant came out and flashed torch light on the faces of both of them. The appellant then asked Kuwarsing whether the amount was brought and be told the appellant that he had brought the amount only for two persons, whereafter the appellant again flashed the torch light around the courtyard, went inside the house and returned asking Kuwarsing to give the money to his son. When Kuwarsing requested the appellant that he himself should accept the amount, the appellant told him that he and his son were not different entities. Kuwarsing then took out the tainted notes from his pocket and handed them over to the son of the appellant aged about 11 years, who counted the same and told his father that they were Rs. 50. He then kept the same in the pocket of his pant. After the agreed signal was given, Police Sub-inspector Choudhary, the other Panch and policemen rushed to the spot. Police Sub-Inspector Chaudhary was told that the amount was given to the son of the appellant, but by this time the son of the appellant had disappeared. The son of the app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document