Oral Judgment:
Heard both sides.
2. Aggrieved by recording of the acquittal of the present respondent of the offences punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by the learned Special Judge, Beed in Special Case No.21/2000 by his judgment and order dated 06-05-2006, the State has preferred the present appeal.
3. The allegations, in nutshell, are as under :.
That, complainant i.e. PW1 Baban Shrikhande wanted that the agricultural land standing on the name of his deceased father should be mutated in his name. The accused/respondent was the then Talathi of concerned village Mandwa. The complainant, therefore, approached him on 12-12-1999 for doing the needful. At that time, the respondent/accused made a demand of Rs.600/- as illegal gratification. Thereafter on 19-01-2000, there were negotiations in which the respondent/accused asked for an amount of Rs.400/- for carrying the necessary mutation entries. It was agreed between them that the said amount would be paid on 21-01-2000 at the office of the respondent/ accused. In the circumstances, the complainant filed his complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau on 20-01-2000.
4. After registration of the complaint, PW-4 Gautam Deshmukh, Police Inspector carried out the investigation. During investigation, he collected two panch witnesses, including PW3 Pandurang Salunke working in B and C department. A pre-trap panchanama was conducted. The decoy money smeared with anthracine powder was kept in the pocket of the complainant by taking due precaution. The complainant and the said panch witnesses accordingly went to the office of the respondent/accused. Initially, he was not there. Thereafter, the accused/respondent came there. Some other persons were also there. At that time, the accused/respondent asked the complainant as to whether he has brought an amount of Rs.400/- as gratification for taking mutation entries. Upon that, the complainant asked the accused/respondent as to whether the mutation is ready. Upon that, the accused/respondent became annoyed and said whether the complainant has become mad like any "dhangar" and told the complainant that the mutation would be ready in due course and first he should pay the money. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the decoy money removing it from his left hand shirt pocket which was accepted by the accused/respondent by his hand and started counting the same when, as per the due signal, the raiding party entered the office and caught the accused/respondent and further exercise was carried.
5. The sanction to prosecute the accused/ respondent was given by PW Shri Kamble, the then Sub-Divisional Officer.
6. Before the learned Special Judge, in all five witnesses were examined. From the side of the respondent/accused, one defence witness i.e. the present Talathi Dashrath Ugale was examined.
7. The defence of the respondent/accused, in short, was that in fact, the accused/respondent was insisting for clearing the arrears of land revenue and cess taxes, etc., amounting to Rs.332/-. The complainant was not ready for the same but ultimately complainant became ready to pay those arrears. However, enraged by the persuasion of the present respondent/accused for payment of money, a false complaint came to be filed and when the accused/ respondent had accepted the money towards the arrears of land revenue and other cess taxes, he was caught.
8. While a retired Naib-Tahsildar i.e. PW5 Mahadeo Chilgar deposed before learned Special Judge that "current arrears" were only Rs.63/-, defence witness i.e. present Talathi - Dashrath Ugale, on the basis of recovery registers, deposed that an amount of Rs.332/- towards the preceding four years were in arrears. Besides there were certain cess like education cess, dues of Employment Guarantee Cess, etc. which were not included in the register.
9. The complainant, in his examination-in-chief, itself has deposed that the accused/respondent had insisted for first clearing the arrears of land revenue and then he would do the needful regarding the mutation. A panch witness i.e. PW3 Pandurang Salunke has deposed regarding the demand of money during the trap on the line of the panchanama i.e. the accused/respondent asked the complainant as to whether he (complainant) had brought an amount of Rs.400/- and the complainant asked him (accused) as to whether the 7/12 extract was ready. Upon that, the accused/respondent got annoyed and said to the complainant whether he has become mad like a "dhangar" and asked him for first giving the amount.
10. On the basis of all this material, the learned Special Judge has concluded that while the complainant, beyond his complaint, has accepted in examination-in-chief that the accused/respondent was insisting for clearing the dues of the land revenue, etc., the complainant was not ready to pay the same initially. Further, even during the trap, there was no clear demand from the side of the accused/respondent of the illegal gratification towards carrying the mutation entries, but merely he asked as to whether he (complainant) had brought the amount of Rs.400/-. This was fortified by the panch witness also and in the circumstances, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused/respondent and he was acquitted of the offence.
11. As regards the sanction, it was held that admittedly appointment letter was issued by the Collector while the sanction to prosecute the accused/respondent was given by the Sub-Divisional Officer. However, it was made clear during the evidence itself that after the appointment of the present accused/respondent as Talathi by the Collector, all the powers of appointment and removal of Talathis in the State of Maharashtra were delegated by the State Government to the Sub-Divisional Officers. The learned Special Judge, however, found that since the appointment letter was issued by the Collector, the sanction to prosecute the accused/respondent accorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not valid.
12. The learned A.P.P. submitted before me that the learned Special Judge did not advert to the fact that the dues against the complainant were only Rs.63/-. Therefore, the defence version ought not to have been believed in the teeth of the statement of the retired Tahsildar. Further, it was wrongly held that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not competent to accord the sanction.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/respondent submitted that on the basis of the material before him, a reasonable and probable view has been taken by the learned Special Judge. Therefore, no interference in the order of acquittal is warranted.
14. Upon consideration of the rival argument, in my view, the reasons forwarded by the learned Special Judge are based on the material placed before him. The complainant PW1 Baban did not state in his complaint that the present respondent/accused had at any point of time insisted the complainant for first clearing the Government arrears due against him. In examination-in-chief itself, however, he accepted that the accused/respondent was pressing for first clearing those arrears before carrying the work of mutation entries. Not only this, during examination-in-chief, the complainant deposed as under:-
"I thought that he (accused) was demanding the amount for doing my work of taking succession entry."
Thus, it was merely the thinking of the complainant that the accused/respondent was making the demand of illegal gratification. Admittedly, at the time of trap, the conversation that took before the independent panch witness does not any way show that the accused/respondent had made demand of the money as an illegal gratification for carrying the mutation entry, but he merely confronted the complainant by asking him as to whether he had brought money which was directed and should not ask for mutation entry like a mad shepherd.
15. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, in my view, the learned Special Judge has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused/respondent and acquitted the accused/ respondent.
16. As regards the sanction, it is an admitted fact that after the appointment of the accused/ respondent by the Collector, the State Government has delegated the power of appointment and removal of Talathis to the Sub-Divisional Officers. In the circumstances, the reasoning given by the learned Special Judge in this regard cannot be sustained.
17. However, as the appeal fails on merit, the issue of sanction to prosecute the accused/ respondent remains only of academic interest. In the result, the appeal fails and it is, therefore, dismissed.