DATTATRAYA S/O RAJARAM THAOKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dattatraya S/O Rajaram Thaokar
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
Rohit B. Deo, J. -
(1.) The appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2001 delivered by Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case 25/1991, by and under which, the appellant is convicted of offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/ for offence under section 7 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/ for offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act.
(2.) The prosecution case is that the accused was working as an Accounts Officer and at the relevant time was attached to the office of Superintending Engineer, 400 K.V. Transmission Lines, Construction Circle, Nagpur. The complainant Padgilwar lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur (A.C.B.) at 10:05 hrs. on 23.07.1990. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is a contractor and two bills in respect of the work of Pandharkawada and Wani were pending with the then Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B.). The bill of work of Wani was a final bill of Rs.19,000/ and odd and the bill for the Pandharkawada work was Rs.28,000/. Shri Padgilwar did some extra work for head loading in respect of location 417, Mahur and the bill for the said extra work was Rs.11,000/ which was pending since last 6 to 8 months. The complainant learnt that the bill of extra work was forwarded to Nagpur Circle Office in March, 1990, and therefore, contacted the Executive Engineer one Mr. Nikhar who informed that the bill is forwarded to the Division Office, Chandrapur. The complainant contacted the Division Office, Chandrapur and learnt from the Assistant Engineer, one Mr. Kholkute that after making corrections, the bill is sent back to the Nagpur Office. The complainant then contacted the Nagpur Office in June, 1990 and was told by Mr. Nikhar that the bill was sent back to the Chandrapur again for some more corrections.
The complainant contacted Mr. Kholkute again and was informed that the bill is forwarded to Circle Office at Nagpur on 27.06.1990.
(3.) It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant contacted the Circle Office at Nagpur on 13.07.1990 and learnt from Mr. Nikhar that the bill is forwarded to the Accounts Officer, Mr. Thaokar (accused) of the Audit Section.
The complainant contacted the accused, who was not available.
The complainant went to the Circle Office on 18.07.2000 and was able to meet the accused. The complainant requested the accused to audit the bill as early as possible and at that time the accused told him that besides the bill of extra item of Rs.11,000/, the audit section has received one more bill of Rs.19,000/ and odd.
The accused told the complainant that as and when he gets the time he would scrutinize and send the bills and that if the complainant is in a hurry he will have to bear the expenditure.
It is then, that the complainant asked the accused how much expenditure he will have to incur and in response the accused demanded Rs.3000/. The complainant expressed inability to pay Rs.3000/ and the accused then scaled down the demand to Rs.2500/. The complainant was not ready to pay Rs.2500/ and ultimately the amount agreed to be paid to the accused was settled at Rs.2000/.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.