VINAYAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon dtd. 24/7/2019 in Special (ACB) Case No.6 of 2016. The appellant is held guilty of the offences punishable under Sec. 7, 13 (1)(d) read with sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentence awarded is rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default to suffer imprisonment for two months and four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to suffer imprisonment of two months respectively for the offences stated above.

(2.) Story of the prosecution, in short, is that when the accusedappellant was working as a Senior Assistant, Primary Education Department, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, he demanded an amount of Rs.1000.00 from one Prabhakar Abhiman Kate, a de-facto complainant, for cancellation of an entry from his service book. That was wrongly taken. The complainant, therefore, approached the Anti-corruption Bureau with complaint against the accused. The complainant was working as a Kendra Pramukh (Centre Incharge) at Zilla Parishad School, Varkhedi, Tal. Pachora. He stood retired on 31/5/2015. There was an entry in his service book about a scam in purchase of uniform in the year 2010-2011. The complainant was not getting pension because of this entry and therefore he wanted to get deleted this entry and thus approached the accused wherein demand of amount was made. For that purpose an application was made on 15/9/2015 by the complainant. When the amount was demanded on 19/9/2015, complaint was lodged with the Anti-corruption Bureau Office. On the basis of the complaint, trap was arranged by calling two panch witnesses from the Government Office. A trap was arranged on 21/9/2015. Thereupon, necessary investigation was carried out. Statements of witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet came to be filed. In trial the prosecution examined total four witnesses to prove the case.

(3.) It is defence of the accused that there was no demand by the accused. When the accused was busy in his work, the amount was kept on the table by the complainant. So far as the evidence of voice recording is concerned, it is submitted that the recording was not played in the Court, so as to ascertain the correctness of the transcription. There is no identification of voice recorded and therefore it could not have been relied. It is case of the defence that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the demand and acceptance. There was no work pending with the accused. There is no record produced by the prosecution to show that there was in-fact any work pending with the appellant. It is also case of the defence that there is no proper sanction accorded by the authority.