K.V.S. REDDY Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-81
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on December 19,2017

K.V.S. Reddy Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ROHIT.B.DEO,J. - (1.) Challenge is to the judgment dated 17.06.2002 in Special Case 9/1992 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Akola, by and under which, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") is convicted of offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the said offences, respectively. The accused is further sentenced to payment of fine of Rs.1000/- for each of the offences.
(2.) Heard Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the accused and Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent 1.
(3.) The genesis of the prosecution case is in the complaint dated 14.12.1987 (Exh.76) lodged by Mohan Maniram Pawar, the gist of which is as under: Maniram Pawar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant or P.W.1) states that he is working in South Central Railway at Akot as a Gangman. The complainant states that by letter dated 30.11.1987 he was informed of his selection as an Electric Khalashi in the workshop of the Divisional Electrical Engineer at Lalaguda and the letter further states that should he failed to join duty till 15.12.1987 his name will be deleted from the selection list. The complainant states that at 7 O'clock in the morning on 10.12.1987 he asked the accused as to when he would be relieved and was told by the accused that he would not be relieved till the General Manager special inspection is done. The next relevant statement in the complaint is that on 12.12.1987 the complainant came to know that the Senior Divisional Engineer, Hyderabad was to come to Akot, and the complainant intended to submit an application to the said Officer for being relieved early. However, the complainant felt that he should met the accused again before submitting the application to the said Officer. The complainant met the accused near the gate on the road and told him to kindly relieve the complainant before 15.12.1987. The complainant states that at that point in time, the accused demanded Rs.200/-. The complainant states that he returned to his house, prepared an application in duplicate addressed to the Senior Divisional Engineer and waited at the Railway Station. At about 06:30 to 07:00 in the evening, the Senior Divisional Engineer arrived there by 51 down Khandwa to Purna train. The S.D.E. disembarked from the train, the accused was present, the complainant apprised the Sub-Divisional Engineer of the contents of the application and then handed over the application to the said Officer. The Senior Divisional Engineer returned the application to the complainant and asked the accused to relieve the complainant tomorrow (13.12.1987). The next material statement in the complaint is that on 13.12.1987 that since the complainant was not relieved till 13.12.1987, he was certain that the accused will not relieve him till Rs.200/- is paid to the accused. Pursuant to the said complaint dated 14.12.1987, a trap was arranged, which was to be executed on 15.12.1987. The panchas were summoned, the necessary instructions were issued and the usual demonstrations given. However, the trap was unsuccessful. The version of the complainant is that he inquired with the accused about the relieving order and also informed the accused that the money was brought as asked by the accused. However, the accused told the complainant that he did not want any money and further told the complainant that he would be relieved only when he obtained a letter of the A.E.N.;


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