STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. AVINASH SADASHIV KHRISTI
LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-318
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on October 23,2020

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
VERSUS
Avinash Sadashiv Khristi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.R.SHRIRAM,J. - (1.) This is an appeal filed by the State impugning an order and judgment dated 1st November 2003 passed by the Special Judge, Solapur, acquitting respondents (accused) of offences punishable under Section 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), Section 12 (Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11), Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
(2.) On 5th March 2020 since nobody was present in Court representing respondents, the Court appointed Mr. Amey Patil, an Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. Before I proceed with the case, I must express my appreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour put forth by Mr. Amey Patil, learned Amicus Curiae, for it has been of immense value in rendering the judgment.
(3.) It is the case of prosecution that accused no.1, who was working as Junior Engineer attached to Shetphal Office, MSEB while accused no.2 was working as wireman (helper) attached to the same office. It is the case of prosecution that complainant Baburao Murlidhar Ingole (PW-2) and his brothers had agricultural land to which an electric connection was fitted for drawing water using an electric pump. It is the case of prosecution that on 2 nd January 2001 and 3rd January 2001 the starter fitted to the electric pump has been removed by accused no.1. Thereafter, accused no.1 told complainant to come to his office and settle the matter. Further on 16th January 2001 complaint had gone to the office of MSEB at Shetphal where he met accused no.2 and accused no.2 informed complainant that the starter can be returned provided some money was paid for the work to be done. Thereafter, again on 18th January 2001 complainant went to the office of accused no.1 where he again met accused no.2, who took complainant to the house of accused no.1, at which time accused no.1 demanded Rs.1,500/- to be paid to him and he would return the starter. After negotiation, accused no.1 agreed to accept Rs.1,000/- and to reconnect the electric supply.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.