Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
V.M. Deshpande, J.
Karbhari – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 407 and 404 of 2000
Decided On : 07.04.2015
Thus, from the above, it is amply established that though the application (Exh. 37) for mutation was given by the complainant, he failed to fulfil the necessary requirement as are required for completing the mutation process and, therefore, his application was already filed prior to the date of trap.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 19, 17, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) Bribe Challenge to validity of sanction for prosecution. Where from perusal of material on record it is clear that sanction authority did not apply its mind at the time granting sanction for prosecuting alleged accused because file of complainant was closed prior to accused No. 1 took charge of Table No. 9; sanction order was regarded as against law and untenable. It is clear that sanctioning authority has not applied its mind. The material was already available before the sanction was accorded by the sanctioning authority that the file of the complainant was closed well before the accused No. 1 had taken charge of Table No. 9.
V.M. Deshpande, J.
1. Both these Appeals are decided by this common Judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2000 is filed by Karbhari S/o. Vithoba Tupe, accused No. 1 before the trial Court. Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2000 is filed by Prabhulal S/o. Chandanlal Jaiswal, accused No. 2 before the trial Court. The appellants will be referred by their original position before the trial Court in the present Judgment.
2. By Judgment and Order of conviction, learned Special Judge [A.C.], Aurangabad in Special Case No. 10/1995 dated 21/09/2000 convicted accused No. 1 for the offence punishable u/s. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accused No. 1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- [Rupees Two Hundred], in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months on account of his conviction u/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- [Rupees Three Hundred], in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months on account of his conviction u/s. 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Accused No. 2 is convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 12 read with 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- [Rupees Two Hundred], in default, simple imprisonment for two months.
3. Prosecution case is as under:
"On 31/08/1995, Sk. Ibrahim S/o. Raj Mohammad [P.W. 1] submitted complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad. The complaint is at Exh. 28.
It is alleged in the complaint that on 12/07/1994, complainant purchased a plot admeasuring 1200 Sq. Ft. From City Survey No. 10612 situated at Chaus Colony, Shahbazar, Aurangabad for Rs. 1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh] from Smt. Shahin Fatema Mohammad.
Complaint further proceeds that on 01/08/1994, complainant made an application for mutation with City Survey Officer No. 1, Padampura, Aurangabad. In spite of his various visits to the office, he was unable to meet surveyor. Complaint further alleges that on 21/08/1995, when he had been to the city survey office, that time, Surveyor, accused No. 1 Karbhari S/o. Vithoba Tupe met him. Complainant showed the receipt to him about filing of his application for mutation and made enquiry as to whether his work is done or not. That time, accused No. 1 took out a file from cupboard and from the said file, he handed over copy of the sale deed to the complainant and directed that he should obtain signature of one Officer as 'true copy' and also he gave a blank copy of form Namuna No. 9 on writing on the same city survey No. 10612 and directed the complainant that he should obtain signature of his vendor on the said form.
It is alleged in the complaint that, that time, accused No. 1 demanded Rs.300/- [Rupees Three Hundred]. However, after some talk between them, it was agreed that initially the complainant should give Rs.200/- and remaining Rs.100/- shall be given after the work was over.
It is further alleged in the complaint that thereafter complainant obtained signature of Head Master of Dr. Zakir Hussain high School on the sale deed and also obtained signature of Smt. Shahin Fatema Mohammad on form Namuna No. 9."
4. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 25/08/1995, complainant made application in the name of Municipal Commissioner, Aurangabad and along with the said, he submitted duly signed copy of the sale deed and Namuna No. 9. After submitting the said application, as per the complaint, accused No. 1 met him. That time, he demanded papers from him. Upon that, it was revealed to accused No. 1 that on that day itself he has given the application and the necessary documents. Upon that, accused No. 1 quipped that there was no necessity to give the application and demanded money. When the complainant informed that he has no money, therefore, accused No. 1 asked him to come to the office on 3
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
