Learned Special Judge, Sangli convicted the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”) directing to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) with default clause to suffer imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- (Rs. Two Hundred only) respectively. Both substantive sentences was directed to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, present Appeal is preferred which is admitted on 21st December, 2004.

2. The appellant was a Talathi at the material time. In Dafalpur, Taluka – Jath, District – Sangli, was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P. C. Act. The allegations are, in order to effect mutation of the complainant Ankush Baburao Sankpal and his other brothers, sisters, after death of his father Baburao, the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred only) which he scale down to Rs.250/- (Rs. Two Hundred Fifty only). The matter was reported to police attached to Anti Corruption. On 1st June, 2002, the appellant while in his office demanded Rs.250/- (Rs. Two Hundred Fifty only) to the complainant and accepted said amount which was in the form of tainted notes in presence of independent panch PW.2 Pratap Prabhakar Jamdar. The events were recorded in pre-trap and post-trap panchanama Exhibits–23 and 24 and tainted notes and incriminating documents were recovered. P.W.3 Jotiba Tukaram Patil, Sub Divisional Officer was examined as sanctioning authority. P.W.4 Ramchandra Dadu Chavan carried investigation. P.W.1 Ankush Sankpal was the complainant who has narrated facts of demand dated 31st May, 2002 and acceptance dated 1st June, 2002.

3. Learned senior counsel confined his submissions to two aspects:

(1) That the sanction was defective. SDO P.W. 3 was not an appointing authority. For Talathi in the State of Maharashtra Collector is the appointing authority.

(2) The amount of Rs.250/- (Rs. Two Hundred Fifty only) indeed was received by the appellant towards expenses of postal charges, copying, incurred for issuing notices to the legal representative of Baburao Sankpal.

4. Learned senior counsel says, the charge below Exhibit-7 explained to the accused is misleading as if it was an official function, there is no question of favour. The charge should have indicated having asked for pecuniary benefits, not a part of official work.

5. The learned senior counsel dealt with the scheme of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Code”) to explain effect of Section 14 relating to powers and duties of survey officer which includes a Talathi. The Talathi has to prepare notice and issue the same to the legal representatives as a part of the official duty. According to him in terms of Sections 148, 149 and 150 of the said Code, the register of mutation is to be maintained and deals with rights of the parties. Section 227 contemplate power to summon and for the said purposes according to him the requisite notice charges are to be borne by party concern, even if, it was initially incurred by the appellant.

6. Learned senior counsel has also invited my attention to Maharashtra Land Revenue Rule Book Volume – IV showing duties, obligations, procedure of the Talathi and circle inspector in Maharashtra.

7. Learned A.P.P. says P.W.3 S.D.O. is sanctioning authority which power is vested to him in terms of Government notification dated 30th May, 1984. S.D.O. is the appointing authority and competent to accord sanction. She has supported the judgment of conviction.

8. The defect in the charge to which reference is given is of no consequence as charge as a whole is to be read, it does not send a incorrect message to interpret. Accused consciously accepted it and his plea was recorded below Exhibit-8. Any defect or irregularities in the charge will not vitiate the trial.

9. The objection to sanc