1 a43.2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL 43 OF 2008

Murlidhar s/o. Devaji Deogade,

aged about 56 years, Occ. Service,

R/o Ballarshah, District Chandrapur ….APPELLANT

...V E R S U S...

State of Maharashtra,

through Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau,

Chandrapur

...RESPONDENT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. Astha Sharma, counsel for applicant.

Mr. M.K. Pathan, APP for non-applicant/State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORA

M: ROHIT

B. DEO, J.

DATE : 18.12.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard Ms. Ashtha Sharma, the learned counsel for

the appellant and Mr. M.K. Pathan, the learned APP for non-

applicant/State.

2.

The appellant is assailing the judgment dated

3.1.2008, rendered by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption),

Chandrapur, in Special Case 8 of 1998, whereby the appellant,

who shall be hereinafter referred to as the accused, is convicted

2 a43.2008

for offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act (“Act”, for short) and is sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for six months and to payment of fine of

Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) and in default to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for three months and is further

convicted for offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read

with section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for one year and to payment of fine of Rs. 500/-

(Rupees Five Hundred) and in default to suffer further rigorous

imprisonment for three months.

3.

The prosecution case is that the accused was

working as Patwari at Palasgaon Saza. Mr. Naktu Gavture had

purchased agricultural land admeasuring 3 acres in the name of

his minor son Master Rajesh. Mr. Naktu’s name was shown in

the revenue record as the legal guardian of Master Rajesh. In

1997, Master Rajesh attained majority and Mr. Naktu was

desirous of deleting his name as the legal guardian, from the

revenue record and in June, 1997 submitted an application to

the accused seeking deletion of his name as Master Rajesh’s

guardian. The complainant was summoned to the office of the

accused on 23.7.1997, and on the said day, he paid the accused

3 a43.2008

Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred). The complainant then left

for Chandrapur.

After returning from Chandrapur, the complainant

inquired with the accused as to the deletion of the entry and

was told that while the word “guardian” is deleted Mr. Naktu’s

name continues to be on record. The accused allegedly asked

Mr. Naktu to submit consent deed on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-

(Rupees One Hundred) and on 29.8.1998, the complainant

submitted another application for deletion of name, alongwith

the consent deed. The complainant was then summoned to the

office of the accused on 24.10.1997. However, the Circle

Inspector was not available and the complainant was asked to

come on 28.11.1997.

The Circle Inspector was present on 28.11.1997 and the

accused allegedly inquired from Mr. Naktu whether has has

brought Rs. 700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred) for himself and the

Circle Inspector, the complainant replied in the negative and in

response, the accused allegedly told him that at least Rs.200/-

(Rupees Two Hundred) be paid immediately. It is then alleged

that the accused placed the revenue record before the Circle

Inspector and asked the complainant to arrange Rs. 200/-

(Rupees Two Hundred). The complainant fetched Rs. 200/-

4