JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:--The appellant before me, at the relevant time, was working as a Talathi in the office of Waghare Saja, Taluka Radhanagari and it is alleged that in relation to certain mutation entries, which had to be done for the complainant who is P.W. 3 Ananda Arade, he had made a demand of Rs. 150/-. According to Arade, the matter had been pending for quite some time and he was anxious that it should be concluded. The accused had visited the village on 15-8-1983 at the time of the flag hoisting function and Arade met him along with P.W. 4 Pundalik and requested him to complete his work. The accused is alleged to have demanded Rs. 500/- which, after some bargaining, was reduced to Rs. 150/- and the complainant agreed to come with the money after two days. On 16-8-1983, he went to Kolhapur and lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption authorities, who arranged a trap.

2. It is relevant to record that the Investigating Officer very clearly instructed Arde that he should engage the accused in a conversation in the presence of the pancha Gurav, and that, he should, within the hearing of the pancha, ensure that the accused demands the amount and it is only after this is done that he should hand over the money and give the signal by lifting his cap with his left hand. Pursuant to this arrangement, Arde and Gurav met the accused in his office at about 4.30 p.m. on 17-8-1983. There was only one other person in the office on the adjoining table. Instead of talking about the bribe amount, Arde invited the accused out to the Sahyadri Hotel for a cup of tea. The accused, Arde and pancha Gurav went to the hotel and the record indicates that they were the only customers in the hotel. For some strange reason, Arde did not refer to the transaction there but it is only after they came out of the hotel, that he asked the accused about his work. The accused asked him whether he, in turn, had done the needful and the complainant answered in the affirmative. The complainant thereupon handed over the money to the accused which he put in his shirt pocket at which time, pursuant to the signal from the complainant, the raiding party came and apprehended the accused, the money was recovered from him and traces of anthracene powder were found on his hands, and on his clothing. The accused was arrested, put on trial and came to be convicted by the trial Court under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 161 I.P.C. He was sentenced under the first charge R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for one month and under the second charge, to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for one month.

3. It needs to be mentioned here that the two charges in respect of the same incident and the same amount deal with the same offence and it is rather strange that two separate charges were framed under the two statutes and that separate sentences have been awarded for both of them. That issue, however, is considerably insignificant unless the question arises of confirming the sentences in question.

4. Mr. Sakhare, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued this matter with a considerable amount of efficiency and has taken me through the evidence, both oral and documentary. To start with, he has pointed out that the sanction order in this case is liable to be struck down on the ground of non-application of mind. The sanction order which is at Exhibit 12 has been signed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Badakhakar, who is P.W. 1. Mr. Sakhare has pointed out that as normally happens, the case papers along with the draft sanction order were put up to the office and that it was the Sharistedar who has filled in the requisite blanks in the draft sanction order. All that the S.D.O. has done is to have signed it and to have initialled the submission put up to him. That there was an obligation on the part of his subordinate is not disputed but Mr. Sakhare is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document