IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1226 OF 2002 Anandrao Bapu Patil Since deceased through his L R s. , A. Sindhutai Anandrao Patil Age :- 62 years, Occ. Household, B. Dilip Anandrao Patil Age : 32 years, Occ. Agriculture C. Sandip Anandrao Patil Age 24 years, Occ. Agriculture Nos. A to C R/o at post Aitawade (Kh.)

Tal. Walwa, District Sangli.

D. Suvarna Pradipkumar Patil Age :- 39 years, Occ. Household R/o. Islampur, Tal. Walwa, District Sangli.

E. Sunita Mohanrao Jadhav Age -35 years, Occ.: Househld, R/o. Rahuri, Tal. Rahuti, District Ahmednagar. ...Appellant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent *****

Mr. Umesh Mankapure Advocate for the Appellant a/w Ms. Rati S. Sinhasane Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA KSHITIJ KSHITIJ YELKAR YELKAR D 20 a 2 te 5 : .07.02 Seema 1/24 Mr. B. V. Holambe-Patil APP for the Respondent *****

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 25^th JUNE 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. The issue arisen in this appeal is “whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove that the amount of Rs. 500/- paid by the Appellant-accused to the de-facto Complainant was towards illegal gratification or whether it was towards arrears of water charges?”.

2. After evidence, the Court of Special Judge, Sangli, as per judgment dated 23.10.2002, was pleased to convict the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence imposed was rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In case of default in payment of fine, the Appellant was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. This sentence was imposed for each offence. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged by the Appellant by way of this A ppeal .

3. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Mankapure for the Appellant and learned APP Shri Holambe-Patil for the Respondent-State. With their assistance, I have gone through the evidence and the record. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, needs to be restated. It is as follows:-

Prosecution Case a) The accused was working as V illage D evelopment officer in Haripur Grampanchayat, District Sangli. Whereas de-facto Complainant – Bajrang Pingale -PW No. 1 was interested to delete the entry of the charge in the record of the Grampanchayat in respect of the house property. His father was the owner of the said house.

b) The loan was repaid and Dinanath Bhosale Co-operative Nagari Patsanstha Ltd. issued a letter dated 28.09.1999, at Exh. 10, addressed to the Village Development Officer requesting to delete the charge from the record.

c) The d e-facto Complainant handed over the letter in the office of the Grampanchayat of Haripur village and one Mr. Kore accepted it. He was the Clerk. Accused was not present in the office on that date.

d) Next date Complainant-Mr. Pingale met the accused. The accused was busy in election process. He requested Mr.

Pingale to come after one week.

e) When contacted after one week, accused explained to Mr.

Pingale that he is in arrears of water charges . Mr. Pingale was instructed to clear the arrears and then accused will remove the entry of the charge on property extract.

f) Mr. Pingale was not happy and he assured the accused to clear the water charges afterwards and insisted for removal of entry of the charge on property extract.

g) At that juncture, accused made demand of Rs. 700/- and during discussion, it was reduced to Rs. 500/-. It is to be paid on the next date.

h) Being annoyed, Mr. Pingale approached the Anti Corruption Bureau at Sangli and narrated his complaint.

i) PI-Satish Mane attached to the Office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Sangli recorded his statement. It is at Exh. 11.

j) PI Mane called two panchas. One of them is PW No. 2-

Annasaheb Baburao Haringale. He was from the office of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sangli.

k) Formalities were completed and pre-trap panchnama was prepared.

l) Then all the raidi