ANURADHA KANTHIRAM WASNIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD rival arguments on earlier dates on this criminal appeal preferred by the original accused (since deceased) challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed on 30/9/2005. Said impugned judgment and order was passed in Special Case No. 15 of 1995 in which, initially there were three accused including the present appellant (since deceased) being original accused No.1, however, accused Nos. 2 and 3 died during the pendency of the matter and as such case against them stood abated leaving behind only accused No.1 to face the trial. By the impugned judgment and order original accused No.1, present appellant (since deceased), was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and also punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, original accused No.1 preferred appeal in the year 2005, however, during the pendency of the appeal, original accused No.1 died and his wife Smt. Anuradha Wasnik continued the said litigation being legal representative of said accused No.1 and as such her name was inserted as appellant as present position stands.

(2.) PRIOR to appreciating the rival arguments, the case of the prosecution in nutshell can be mentioned in order to appreciate proper prospective of the matter and in order to ascertain whether material brought before the trial Court warranted conviction for the offences charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) ACCORDING to the complainant, sometime in the month of August, 1993, there was camp of Revenue Inspector at the village of the complainant at Kerdi and that time he had met accused No.1, the Revenue Inspector and also met accused No.2 Shri Dhoke, the then Patwari working in revenue department and requested both of them to complete the work of mutation and to give correct 7/12 extract for the agricultural property of his father. According to the complainant, that time, Dhoke Patwari insisted that the complainant should meet accused No.1 and accordingly in such meeting it was initially told by accused No.1 that amount of Rs.580.00 was necessary, i.e. Rs.500.00 for doing the work and Rs.80.00 to cure the deficit stamp papers on the instruments. That time, according to the complainant, he requested accused No.1 to lower the said amount of Rs.500.00 as he had no money and as such allegedly the said amount was reduced to Rs.200.00. Thereafter, the matter was not finalized as no payment was made by the complainant. Also, according to the complainant, on or about 12/10/1993 he met accused No.1 in the Gram Panchayat office at Kanhan and again requested for the work. That time he was told that as the money was not paid, the work was not done and accused No.1 further told him that accused No.2 Dhoke Patwari was available in the village and asked the complainant to call said Patwari along with the record and again demanded for the money so that the work could be done.