VIDHYADHAR GANESH LANJEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (A-l) along with two others was tried for offences punishable under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under S. 161, Indian Penal Code. read with Ss. 120b, 201 and 204, Indian Penal Code. They were also tried for offences punishable under S. 406 read with S. 120b and 193 read with S. 120b. The trial court acquitted A-3 and convicted the appellant and the other accused under some of those charges and sentenced them to 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 under the main charge and various other terms of imprisonment under the other charges. Both A-l and A-2, the convicted accused preferred a criminal appeal to the High court. The High court by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Ss. 5 (2) and 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under S. 161, Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded therein. The High court set aside the convictions under S. 120b read with Ss. 201, 204, 193 and 466, Indian Penal Code. The High court, however, acquitted A. 2. A few facts that may be relevant are as follows:- The three accused were government servants holding different posts in the Tehsildar office in the Collectorate of Ratnagiri. The Collector Ratnagiri directed the accused No. 2 to help A-l in deciding some land ceiling cases, which were heard by him between 20-3-76 to 31-3-76. A-2 was entrusted with additional charge of regular Tehsildar between 31-3-76 to 31-4-76. The office of A-l, A-2 and A-3 was situated in a rented building. The rented portion have 5 rooms. A-l was holding the post of Chairman of Lands Distribution tribunal and was assisted by a bench clerk and a peon. The third accused working as Extra Aval Karkun was sitting in the Tehsildar office. A-l in his capacity as Chairman was to hold enquiry in respect of lands within the area. The enquiry had to be held as per the procedure under the rules. The tribunal was set up under the certain provisions of the Maharashtra Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings Act. After the commencement of the Act, the landholders were to file return in the office of the Collectorate giving details and such returns were to be filed under S. 13 which lays down that certain penal provisions were applicable upon the failure of the landholders in filing such returns. It is alleged the complainant had 18 to 20 acres of land which was in excess. He was interested in saving the lands from being declared as surplus land. For this purpose he has filed a return. On 31-3-76 the complainant appeared in the office of the tribunal and presented his form. He was asked to bring some more records. On 10-4-76 the complainant was informed that he was required by A-l. Accordingly he met A-l at his house, who took him for a walk and demanded Rupees 15,000. 00 for helping him. The complainant pleaded his inability to pay such a heavy amount. A-l, however, asked to meet him at 4.30 p. m. Again a demand was made. He told that he was in a position to pay Rs. 1,000. 00 or Rs. 1,200. 00 only. A-l asked him to bring Rs. 1,000. 00 to his office. The complainant, however, met the Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch in his office and apprised him of the whole matter. The Inspector received the complaint and prepared the necessary panchnama. A sanction was obtained by him. He arranged panchas and in their presence the complainant produced 10 currency notes to the denomination of Rs. 100. 00 each. They were subjected to phenolphthalein powder and they were handed over to the complainant and he was asked to give that tainted money to the accused. Accordingly, a trap was laid and the notes were recovered from the house of the accused. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was led. A-l; pleaded that the complainant gave him money saying that his son is a vagabond and,. therefore, it would be safe to keep the money, with A-l which he would take later. During the trial several witnesses were examined and, the trial court after having examined the; entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that A-l and A-2 conspired and all of, them committed the said offence and it gave' the benefit of doubt to A-3. In the appeal, the,, High court examined several contentions: raised by the appellants. So far as the fact of; recovery is concerned, it is spoken by the eye. witnesses. The High court also held that the investigation officer's statement is corroborated by the statement of the eye-witnesses We have gone through the entire evidence and the detailed judgments of both the courts below. We see absolutely no ground to reject the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the demand made by the accused and as well as the recovery of the tainted money from the house of the appellant. The plea set up by the appellant on the face of it is artificial and had rightly been rejected by both the courts below.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants' however, submits that the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1976 and the criminal proceedings went on for along time and the appellant has undergone an agony during all these years and that he has lost his job and that he had to maintain the family Now the question is whether at this distance of time, the appellant should be sent back to jail According to the prosecution the amount demanded was only a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 However, an officer of such a rank ought not to have indulged in such corrupt activities misusing his office; but in awarding the sentence, we have to take several circumstance into consideration. In B. G. Goswami Delhi Administration, 1974) 1 SCR 222 : AIR 1973 SC 1457) , under similar circumstances it is observed that too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their importance One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardended criminal. In awarding the sentence several circumstances should be taken into consideration and whether the same sentence should be awarded particularly when the occurrence is said to have taken place several years back. In the said judgment this Court also endorsed that the appellant therein had undergone 7 years agony and harassmeni during the criminal proceedings and that he was also going to lose his job and had to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him. In this case also there are similar circumstances which have to be taken into consideration and; therefore, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment is rescued to one already undergone and the fine, is enhanced from Rs. 1,000. 00 to Rupees 2,000. 00. The period of imprisonment in case of default shall remain the same. Subject to above modification in the sentence and fine, the appeal is disposed of.

(3.) The appellant is given 2 months time to pay the fine.