Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1037
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.
GHALAPPA SARDA NADGERI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Cri. Appeal Nos. 570 of 1997 and 800 of 2015
Decided on : 18-01-2016
For the Petitioner: Niteen Pradhan, Ms. S. D. Khot, Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, Viresh V. Purwant
For the State : Ms. A. A. Mane
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and section 7 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court convicted the accused under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The case involved public servants demanding illegal gratification and accepting tainted currency notes. The court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeals, maintaining the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, public servants, demanded illegal gratification from the complainant and accepted tainted currency notes. The complainant reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid to catch the accused in the act. The accused were subsequently charged and convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeals, maintaining the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused were guilty of demanding illegal gratification and accepting tainted currency notes, thereby violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the conduct of the accused, the evidence presented, and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It concluded that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption drawn under section 20 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, maintained the conviction and sentence, and directed the appellants to surrender before the Special Judge at Solapur. Upon failure to surrender, non-bailable warrants would be issued against the appellants.
Accused/appellant No. 1 is convicted for offence punishable under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of one and half years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of Six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months. Appellant No. 2 is convicted for offence punishable under section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months by Special Judge, Solapur in Special Case No. 17 of 1994 vide Judgment and Order dated 8-9-1997. Hence, these appeals.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows.
3. Accused No. 1 Ghalappa Nadgeri was working as a Police Head Constable. Accused No. 2 Gurunath Rathod was working as a Police Constable. They were attached to Akluj outpost police station, Shripur, Taluka Malshiras. Both the accused were public servants.
4. It is the case of prosecution that on 9-10-1993 at about 6.00 p.m., both the accused informed P.W. 4 Shrimant Jorwar that a complaint had been filed against them and that they should come to Shripur police station. P.W. 4 and his father Baliram had been to the outpost police station. Shrimant was informed that State Farming Corporation (Hereinafter referred as “SFC”) had lodged a report against him and had initiated proceedings for cultivating the land block No. 23 which was in possession of SFC. Balwant Jorwar was in possession of 2 Acres and 5 Gunthas land in Block No. 37 and the remaining land was in possession of SFC. Hence, there was a civil dispute between SFC and Balwant Jorwar. Suit was pending before Civil Judge Junior Division, Malshiras. In the intervening period i.e. on 29-5-1993, Tahsildar, Malshiras had decided the ROR (Record of Rights) proceedings in favour of SFC and had further given direction that the name of SFC be included in the Record of Rights (7/12 Extract) in the coloumn cultivation.
5. It is the case of prosecution that on 16-9-1993, manager had filed an application to Akluj Police Station contending therein that Baliram Jorwar had devoid the orders passed by Tahsildar and was cultivating the land block No. 23 of village Mire. The said application was assigned for inquiry to accused No. 1. At the relevant time, both the accused were attached to Akluj outpost police station. On 9-10-1993 accused had been to village Mire and informed Baliram Jorwar about the report filed by SFC. They had taken Baliram Jorwar and his sons Shrimant, Kundalik and Pandurang to the police station. At that relevant time, Assistant Security Officer of SFC was also accompanying the accused as well as the members of Jorwar family. Accused had informed shrimant Jorwar that he would have to cause arrest of Balwant and Shrimant on the basis of report lodged by SFC. That Shrimant Jorwar had requested the accused not to take coercive steps. At that juncture, accused No. 1 had demanded a gratification of Rs. 5000/- in the eventuality that Jorwars do not wish to be arrested. That the amount was negotiated and reduced to Rs. 3000/-. It was further decided that Shrimant would pay gratification of Rs. 3000/- on 11-10-1993. It is also alleged that accused No. 1 had informed them that upon failure to pay Rs. 3000/- they would be taken into custody. On this condition Balwant and Shrimant were released from Police Station.
6. That Shrimant Jorwar had no intention to pay illegal gratification and therefore, on 11-10-1993, he approached the office of Anti Corruption Bureau at Solapur and lodged a report. Report lodged by him was reduced into writing by Dy.S.P. Chavan. Tha
