The court affirmed that consistent witness testimonies and forensic evidence are crucial in establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kishore C. Sant, J.

1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 14.12.2004, passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar, in Special Case No. 10 of 1998. The appellant is held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months for each of the offences. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant at the relevant time was working as Junior Engineer with the then M.S.E.B. at Karjat, District Ahmednagar. The informant Gautam Dagadu Shelke approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 09.02.1998 and lodged a report. It is informed that the said informant had applied for electricity connection for installing an electric motor pump of 5 H.P. on the well situated in his land. There were also applications made by the others persons for getting electricity connections. On making an application the informant also deposited amount as per quotation. He was told in the MSEB office that he will receive letter from their office and thereafter he will have to again to approach MSEB office. The appellant (for short accused) asked the informant to come along with other persons in group. On that, he went to one Balasaheb Yadav, the Sarpanch of the village, who also wanted to get electricity connection. Along with Sarpanch he approached to the office of MSEB Karjat, where it was told that they have to pay Rs. 1,000/- each, for getting electricity connection. Thereafter, the line was taken after bringing material, like wire and other instruments. Line was given to one Sandipan Toradmal by taking wire till his line so the informant was also given connection. Even after getting connection the motor of the informant did not work and therefore, again he went to the office of the accused along with said Balasaheb Yadav. At that time, the accused demanded amount of Rs. 500/-. It is on that the complaint came to be lodged with ACB. On receiving the complaint, ACB decided to lay a trap. It is held that the trap was successful and the prosecution was launched.

EVIDENCE BY PROSECUTION

3. The prosecution in its support examined four witnesses. PW-1 is the defacto informant namely Gautam Shelke. He stated the facts, lodging of complaint, laying of the trap and about actual happening of the incident etc. He deposed that on the date of incident the raiding party left the ACB office at 8 a.m., by Government Jeep and reached Karjat at around 11 a.m. He was accompanied by Balasaheb Yadav & pancha No. 1. The raiding party was following them. On reaching to the office, they found that accused was present in the office. Balasaheb asked the accused as to when connectioan would be given. On this accused told that unless the amount is paid the connection will not be given. On that the informant placed the amount on the table, the accused picked up the amount and kept in the bag on the table. Thereafter, the informant came out and gave signal to the raiding party. On that the raiding party came in the office. The informant was asked to go out and again was called after some time. After returning, his hands were tested under the Ultra Violate lamp and anthracene powder was seen to his right hand.

4. In the cross-examination he accepted that he had fixed a starter for the connection. One Mr. Babar from MSEB had been to his field for giving connection. He could not tell as to whether said Babar had come on 02.02.1998. He denied that said Babar had again come on 24.01.1998. He accepted that the starter and other things were brought, however, were not fitted. He could not remember whether said Balasaheb Yadav was with him when the persons from the group had been to the accused on earlier occasion. He could not tell as to whether Balasaheb was present when the accused made alleged demand of Rs. 1,000/-.