DOMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-1979-9-4
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 28,1979

DOMA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHRIRAM V. STATE OF M.P [REFERRED TO]
RARNBHAU V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. TEJ RAM [LAWS(HPH)-1989-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAUL VS. STATE OF J AND K [LAWS(J&K)-2005-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MAGANBHAI JETHABHAI VAGHELA [LAWS(GJH)-1981-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. RAM KRISHAN [LAWS(HPH)-2001-8-23] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. (i3 and 64 both of the year 1978. Criminal appeal No. 63 of 1978 has been preferred by the original accused No. 1, Doma, while Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1978, has been preferred by original accused No. 2 Diwan, both of whom in a joint trial, were convicted by the Special Judge, Bhandara for the offences under Section 161 read with Sec 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A compendious sentence against each of them was passed sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.
(2.)APPELLANT Doma original accused No. 1 was working as a Patwari with his headquarters at mouza Irali while appellant Diwan original accused No. 2 was working as a Kolwal at mouza Umri at the material time. Maroti (P. W. 3) resident of Umri had agreed to purchase some land from one Kisan Brahmankar and because of the provisions of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, he required a permission from the Collector for which he required certain documents from the Patwari.
(3.)IT is alleged by the prosecution that Sitaram and his father Maroti had approached appellant Doma, who was the Patwari, several times for getting these documents from him. Appellant Doma every time used to demand a bribe of Rs. 50/-from them for supply of those documents. On 8th January 1977, it is alleged that the Patwari made a demand of Rs. 50/- stating that the amount should be paid to appellant Diwan, who was the Kotwal, and collect the papers from him. It is then alleged that Sitaram contacted Diwan Kotwal on 9-1-1977 and enquired from him about the documents and learnt that the documents were received by him from the Patwari, but he was told that the documents would be handed over to him only after Rs. 50/were paid, It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 10-1-1977 when Sitaram happened to come to Bhandara for his work he met appellant Doma where again Doma told him to pay Rs. 50 to Diwan Kotwal and collect the documents from him.


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