SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 147

SANDEEP K.SHINDE
Raju Shantaram Kakphale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Satyavrat Joshi.
For the Respondent: Veera Shinde.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

1. Appellant, a peon in the Thane District Court, was found and held, guilty for demanding and accepting Rs.300/- as illegal gratification for supplying certified copies of the judgment to the complainant. Thus, for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-; and simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-; respectively.

2. Mr. Tapan, complainant in this case, was prosecuted and tried in Criminal Case No. 3629/2004. He was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 31st January, 2008. After pronouncing the judgment in the open Court on 31st January, 2008, complainant applied for certified copies, on the same day, vide Application No. 161/2008 dated 31st January, 2008. The complainant paid copying charges and copies were to be delivered/supplied on 4th February, 2008.

3. It is unfolded in the evidence that, though the judgment was delivered in the open Court on 31st January, 2008, Pradeep Narvekar, stenographer typed the judgment on 3rd February, 2008.

4. Complainant deposed,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top