RAJENDRAPRASAD S/O SHIVCHARAN PANDE & ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-112
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on August 22,2017

Rajendraprasad S/O Shivcharan Pande And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ROHIT B. DEO, J. - (1.) The appellants seek to assail the judgment and order dated 12102000 in Special Case 2/1992, delivered by the learned Special Judge, Bhandara convicting appellant 1 under Sections 7 and 13(2)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and appellant 2 under Section 12 of the said Act. Appellant 1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 7 and offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and to additionally pay a fine of Rs.1,000/. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. Appellant 2 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to additionally pay a fine of Rs.500/.
(2.) The case of the prosecution which is unfolded during the course of trial is that the complainant Chakrapani is the owner of Niranjan Dantamanjan Factory at Tumsar. One of the six brothers of the complainant one Shamsundar was told by appellant 1 (hereinafter referred to as "accused 1") that his maid Durga is accusing Shamsundar of harassment and sexual exploitation. Shamsundar, according to the prosecution case, suspected Durga of thievery and had lodged complaint against the said maidservant who was also arrested.
(3.) Accused 1 allegedly conveyed to Shamsundar that if cognizance is taken of the accusations, leveled by Durga, the maidservant, Shamsundar would face social stigma. A frightened Shamsundar confided with the complainant who met one Petkar, Police Inspector. Police Inspector Petkar told the complainant to meet accused 1 and the complainant accordingly deputed one advocate Swami to do the needful. The said advocate conveyed to the complainant that P.S.I. Pande accused 1 demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/ to settle the issue. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhandara on 2571991. The complaint was reduced into writing and elaborate preparations were made by Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhandara to lay the trap. The trap was attempted on the same day. The complainant alongwith panch Kalbande went to police station Tumsar. The shadow panch Kalbande stayed near the scooter, the complainant went inside the police station and had a conversation with accused 1 who allegedly told the complainant that he would not be satisfied with Rs.5,000/ and that he be paid Rs.10,000/ to settle the issue. The complainant returned alongwith the shadow panch and the first trap did not materialize.;


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