The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of independent witness testimony and reasonable corroboration in proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

Appellant has questioned legality and correctness of Judgment and Order dated 25th February, 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ichalkaranji in Special Case No.05 of 2005, convicting him under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption. Act, 1988 (for short, “the PC Act”) sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a total fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Patil, learned APP for the State. Perused entire record.

3. Prosecution case in brief is as under:-

(i) Property bearing block No.714 admeasuring about 0.53 ares, situated at Managaon was owned by Mr. Anant G. Joshi. Appellant was working as Talathi of the said village at the relevant time. The said property was in possession of Mr. Nabhiraj Magadum i.e. father of the complainant Mr. Nitin Magadum since the year 1974. Revenue records mentioned name of Mr. Nabhiraj Magadum in crop statement as the person in possession and cultivating the said land. However, in the rights column names of Mr. Annasaheb Magadum and Mr. Appasaheb Magadum were mentioned as protected tenants of the said land. As the said land was being cultivated since the year 1974 by Mr. Nabhiraj Magadum, the original landlord i.e. Mr. Anant Joshi decided to sell it to the complainant. Complainant accordingly filed an Application before Tahasildar, Hatkanangale on 16th January, 2003 for deletion of names of Mr. Annasaheb Magadum and Mr. Appasaheb Magadum. The Tahasildar, Hatkanangale by its Order dated 31st January, 2003 directed Talathi, Managaon to delete names of Mr. Annasaheb Magadum and Mr. Appasaheb Magadum. The said Order was handed over by the complainant Mr. Nitin Magadum to the Appellant.

(ii) That, on 31st January, 2003, the complainant Mr. Nitin Magadum purchased the said land from Mr. Anant Joshi for a consideration of Rs.42,000/-by executing a Sale Deed in the name of his sons namely Darshan and Bhushan who were minors. After purchase of the said land, the complainant Mr. Nitin Magadum forwarded one application to the office of the Appellant by registered post for effecting mutation in the revenue record on the basis of the said registered Sale-Deed. He received acknowledgment of the same on 6th March, 2003.

(iii) On 17th February, 2003 Mr. Nitin Magadum (complainant) contacted Appellant in his office and inquired about the Order passed by the Tahasildar for deleting names of Mr. Annasaheb and Mr. Appasaheb Magadum. He also inquired as to whether the mutation on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 31st January, 2003 was effected on the revenue record in favour of his sons. At that time the Appellant informed Mr. Nitin Magadum (complainant) that, an amount of Rs.4,000/-was required for the said work. Mr. Nitin Magadum questioned Appellant, why such an amount was required, upon which the Appellant informed him that, he was not knowing the transactions. The complainant informed the Appellant that, he was not in a capacity to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/-, whereupon the Appellant asked him to leave his office. Subsequently, in the month of February again the complainant contacted the Appellant and made inquiry about his work. However, the Appellant informed him that, he was busy in some other work and asked the complainant to come later on.

(iv) That, on 29th April, 2003, Mr. Nitin Magadum (complainant) again contacted the Appellant in his office about his work. Appellant told Mr. Nitin Magadum.(complainant) that, if he was ready to pay Rs.4,000/-then only the Appellant would do his work. Complainant again expressed his inability to pay Rs.4,000/-and after bargaining Appellant decided and demanded Rs.2,000/-for doing the work of the complainant. Mr. Nitin Magadum (complainant) informed the Appellant that, at that point of time he was not having such an amount and requested the Appellant to do the work and he would pay the payment later on. Appellant told the complainant that, if it w