KESHAV MOHANJI SAKHALE V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2000
Citation;2009ALL M R(CRI)2681dated 18th august 2009
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement
rendered by learned Special Judge in Special Case No.
11/1995 whereby the appellants have been convicted for
offences punishable under section 7 and 13 (2) read with( 2 )
section 13 (1) (d) and section 12 read with section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the
PC Act”). The appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and to
pay fine of Rs. 500/, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for six (6) months for offence punishable
under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the
PC Act and further sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.
200/, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
three (3) months for offence punishable under section 7
of the PC Act. The appellant No. 2 is sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay
fine of Rs. 100/, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two (2) months for offence punishable
under section 12 read with section 7 of the PC Act.
2. Indisputably, the appellant No. 1 was working
as a public servant being village Talathi for Sajja
Shelud and the appellant No. 2 was also a public servant
being the village Kotwal. Complainant PW Magan Bochre( 3 )
is inhabitant of village Chartha which comes within
revenue jurisdiction of Sajja Shelud. He had purchased
certain agricultural lands out of lands bearing Gat Nos.
39, 44 and 96 situated in his village. He had
approached the appellant No. 1 for recording of names of
himself and his relatives as per the saledeeds.
3. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that
the appellant No. 1 demanded Rs. 500/ each for
effecting mutations in the 7/12 record on basis of the
five (5) saledeeds under which the purchases were made
by complainant PW Magan Bochre and his relatives. The
total amount of Rs. 2500/ thus was demanded for doing
the official act of the five (5) proposed mutation
entries. Reluctantly, complainant PW Magan Bochare paid
Rs. 500/ to the appellant No. 1 on 24
th
May, 1995. The
appellant No. 1 told him to pay the balance amount of
Rs. 2000/ and further informed him that unless such
amount was paid, the contemplated work would not be
done. Complainant PW Magan Bochre, however, met the
appellant No. 1 on 31
st
May, 1995 and urged to record the
mutation entries as per the saledeeds. The appellant( 4 )
No. 1 refused to do the work without receipt of the
demanded amount. Since complainant PW Magan Bochre did
not want to pay the demanded bribe amount, ultimately,
on 6
th
June, 1995, he went to office of the Anti
Corruption Bureau (ACB), Aurangabad. He narrated the
nature of demand made by the appellant No. 1 to Dy.S.P.
(ACB) – PW Shri Khekale. His oral complaint was reduced
into writing. The Dy.S.P. requisitioned presence of two
(2) employees of the Government Milk Dairy as panch
witnesses. They were informed about details of the
complaint lodged by complainant PW Magan Bochre.
Thereafter, 20 currency notes of Rs. 100/ denomination
each were produced by complainant PW Magan Bochre. The
currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder. He
and the panch witnesses were explained the purport of
using the anthracene powder. The Dy.S.P. instructed them
about the steps to be taken during course of the trap
which was planned to be laid. A pretrap panchanama was
drawn in the office of the A.C.B. The Dy. S.P.,
complainant PW Magan Bochre, both the panchas and the
other members of the police staff proceeded to village
LadSawangi in a police jeep. The office of the village( 5 )
Talathi was then at village LadSawangi. The jeep
vehicle was parked at some distance. As instructed to
them, complainant PW Magan Bochre and shadow panch by
name Shri Baraskar went to the office of the Talathi on
foot. The appellant No. 1 was present in his office. He
made inquiry about the shadow panch and after some
formal talk, the appellant went outside the office where
the complainant – PW Magan Bochre was standing. The
appellant No. 1 inquired whether he had brought the
money. Then, complainant PW Magan Bochre gave
affirmative reply. The appellant No. 1 demanded the
money from him. Thereupon, complainant PW Magan Bochre
took out the bundle of tainted currency notes. The
appellant No.1 instructed the appellant No. 2 to receive
the money from him. The appellant No. 2 thereafter took
the tainted currency notes from him and placed the same
in the left side pocket of his trouser. Immediately,
complainant PW Magan Bochre signaled the members of the
raiding party. The Dy.S.P. Shri Khekale and other
members of the raiding party rushed to the spot. On
inquiry, the shadow panch – PW Shri Baraskar told them
about acceptance of the tainted currency notes by the( 6 )
appellant No. 2. Both the hands of the appellant No. 2
were firmly held. The fingers of his hands were found to
bear bluish shining when examined under the ultra violet
lamp. The tainted currency notes were removed from
pocket of the trouser of the appellant No. 2. A post
trap panchanama was drawn. The tainted currency notes
were seized after following due procedure. On basis of
F.I.R. lodged by Dy.S.P. Shri Khekale, crime No.
II6/1995 was registered against the appellants. House
of the appellant No. 1 was searched. Copies of the
three (3) saledeeds and original notice in Form No. 4
were recovered from his residential premises. On basis
of material collected during course of investigation,
both the appellants were chargesheeted for the offences
under the relevant provisions of the PC Act.
4. The appellants denied truth into the
accusations shown under the charge (Exh11). Their
defence was that the amount was required to be collected
for puchasing of saving certificates in pursuance to
directions of the Commissioner and Collector (Revenue)
to enhance the small savings. According to them, the( 7 )
appellant No. 1 was given target to collect small
savings. In order to accomplish such target, he
instructed the complainant – PW Magan Bochre to bring
the amount for purchasing of small saving certificates
from the post office. It was pleaded that he had
directed the complainant PW Magan Bochre to accompany
the appellant No. 2 to the post office and the amount
was given to the appellant No. 2 for purchasing of such
saving certificates from the post office.
5. At the trial, the prosecution examined the
complainant and other witnesses in support of its case.
The prosecution also relied upon various documents. The
learned Special Judge held that both the appellants were
guilty of the charges levelled against them. They were
accordingly convicted and sentenced as described
hereinabove.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned A.P.P.
7. Clinching question is whether the prosecution( 8 )
has established the initial demand of the appellant No.
1 for Rs. 2500/ being illegal gratification to do the
official work of effecting mutation entries in pursuance
to the five (5) saledeeds under which the five (5)
parcels of the lands were purchased by complainant PW
Magan Bochre and his relatives and that on the relevant
day, an amount of Rs. 2000/ was accepted by the
appellants in pursuance to such demand. There cannot be
two opinion about the fact that the demand for such
amount could not be made for doing the official act of
effecting mutation entries in pursuance to the sale
deeds as requested for by complainant PW Magan Bochre.
Smt. S.S. Jadhav would submit that in absence of any
written application of complainant PW Magan Bochre, it
could not be said that he had sought mutations in
pursuance to the said five (5) saledeeds. The learned
advocate points out that recitals of the F.I.R. purport
to show that complainant PW Magan Bochre had made oral
request to the appellant No. 1 to carry out the work of
mutation. It is argued that in the absence of any
written application, the appellant No. 1 was not under
legal obligation to effect the mutations. It is also( 9 )
pointed out that complainant PW Magan Bochre had
furnished only three (3) copies of the saledeeds to the
appellant No. 1 and the same were lateron recovered from
his house under a panchanama. The learned advocate
would submit that the complainant PW Magan Bochre had
not complied with the requirements though was demanding
for the mutations in the revenue record. I find it
difficult to countenance the argument. The provisions
of sections 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code would make it amply clear that written application
of concerned party is not necessary for effecting
mutation entries in the revenue record.
8. Coming to the version of complainant PW1 Magan
Bochre, it is explicit that he had requested the
appellant No. 1 to take mutation entries on basis of the
five (5) saledeeds pertaining to the purchase
transactions in his name and also in names of his
relatives like wife and son, etc. His version reveals
that the appellant No. 1 demanded amount of Rs. 500/
for each of such mutation entry as reward or
consideration for the official work to be done. The( 10 )
version of PW Magan Bochre reveals that after the first
demand when the accused flatly told him that the
mutation entries would not be taken unless the amount
was paid to him, after about a fortnight, he paid Rs.
500/ to the appellant No. 1 and urged to record the
mutation entries. He received same reply. He again
approached the appellant No. 1 after eight (8) days and
requested to carry out the work of mutation. This time
too, the appellant No. 1 told him that unless the
balance amount was paid to him, the work will not be
done. He then told PW Magan Bochre to bring Rs. 2000/
on the ensuing Wednesday. The version of PW Magan Bochre
reveals that he thereafter approached the Dy.S.P. of
A.C.B., Aurangabad and narrated complaint which was
reduced into writing vide Exh16. He gave details of
further course of action taken by the Dy.S.P. of A.C.B.
9. The version of PW Magan Bochre is duly
corroborated by independent shadow panch witness,
namely, PW2 Baraskar. The oral evidence of both these
witnesses go to show that on 7
th
June, 1995, the tainted
currency notes were given to the complainant – PW Magain( 11 )
Bochre after preparing a pretrap panchanama. Their
versions go to show that when they reached the office of
the appellant No. 1, initially, there was exchange of
salutation. It is pertinent to note that the versions
of both the witnesses would show that the appellant No.
1 asked PW Magan Bochre whether he had brought the
money. Their versions also go to show that the
appellant No. 1 inquired about the shadow panch i.e. PW
Baraskar. This conduct of the appellant No. 1 reveals
his guilty mind. It is obvious that he wanted to
ascertain whether the presence of PW2 Baraskar was
conducive to the act of receiving the money. The
versions of both these witnesses would show that when
the complainant – PW Magan Bochre gave affirmative reply
about his having brought the money, and showed the
tainted currency notes to the appellant No. 1, he called
the appellant No. 2 and asked him to take the amount.
If the appellant No. 1 had no guilty mind then he
himself would have accepted the money and would have
told the complainant – PW Magan Bochre that the saving
certificates will have to be procured by him. Though
defence of the appellant No. 1 was that the amount was( 12 )
directed to be paid to the appellant No. 2 for
purchasing the saving certificates after accompanying
complainant PW Magan Bochre, yet, there was no such oral
direction to the appellant No. 2 in presence of the
shadow panch. It is significant to note that there was
no immediate explanation offered by the appellant No. 1
during the course of the posttrap panchanama in the
context of his acceptance of the money for the purpose
of purchasing saving certificates. He produced two (2)
certificates issued by the higher officer regarding the
good work done by him in the collection of small
savings. It is pertinent to note that there is nothing
on record to show that he was then given any particular
target as such. Nor such immediate reason was available
when ordinarily, there is need to accomplish such
targets by end of the financial year i.e. by end of
March. It was in initial period of June that the
incident occurred.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that version of PW Magan Bochre is unacceptable
because his position could be regarded as that of an( 13 )
accomplice. The law requires scrutiny of the evidence of
such complainant with care and caution. One can not be
oblivious of the fact that PW Shri Baraskar was employed
in Government Milk Dairy at Aurangabad. He had
absolutely no interest in the cause of the complainant –
PW Magan Bochre nor had any animosity with the
appellants. He is an independent witness. His version
does not suffer from any major deficiency. There
appears no substantial reason to dislodge his version.
11. The testimony of PW Shri Baraskar reveals that
Dy.S.P. (ACB) Shri Khekale had taken names of 2/3
persons sitting in the office of the appellant No. 1.
Their names are mentioned in the posttrap panchanama
(Exh19). It is pointed out by the counsel for the
appellants that neither of such independent person was
examined. It cannot be overlooked that though there
were 3/4 persons sitting in the office of the appellant
No.1, yet, the appellant No. 1 had come out of the
office when he inquired with PW Magan Bochre whether the
demanded amount was brought. So, the said persons
sitting inside the office were not the witnesses to such( 14 )
conversation about the demanded amount and giving of the
money. The nonexamination of said persons cannot be
regarded as fatal to the prosecution case. The
appellants did not examine either of such witness in
order to rebut the prosecution case.
12. Though defence of the appellant No. 1 was that
he was required to collect the same amount, for the
purpose of small saving scheme, yet, version of PW4
Sudhakar reveals that the appellant No. 1 had no power
to act as small saving agent. He admits that that the
targets of small savings are required to be given to
talathis. He admits that talathis would request farmers
for depositing small savings. This admission by itself
does not inure to the benefit of the appellants. At the
most, it would show that the targets are given to
talathis for collection of small savings and they
ordinarily ask the farmers to purchase small saving
certificates. The appellant No. 1 could have asked
complainant PW Magan Bochre to produce the small saving
certificates and thereafter to show them to him at the
relevant time before the mutation entries were( 15 )
finalized. No such course of action was taken by the
appellant No. 1. Needless to say, the defence of the
appellant No. 1 is quite afterthought. He has not
discharged the burden to prove such a defence. The
testimony of complainant PW Magan Bochre coupled with
the testimony of PW5 Sonaji Bochre go to show that the
earlier demand made by the appellant No. 1 on 24051995
is also proved. At the time of such demand, PW Sonaji
accompanied the complainant when the latter approached
the appellant No. 1. His version reveals that the
complainant – PW Magain Bochre gave Rs. 500/ to the
appellant No. 1 on that day. His version also reveals
that the appellant No. 1 inquired as to when the
remaining amount would be paid and thereupon, PW Magan
Bochre told him that it would be paid on next Wednesday.
Nothing of much significance was elicited from from
crossexamination of PW Sonaji. He had no discussion
with PW Magan Bochre to initiate case of anti corruption
against the appellant No. 1.
13. From version of PW6 Shri Arun Shinde, it is
amply clear that he received the forwarding letter( 16 )
(Exh35) of the Dy.S.P. (ACB). He also received list of
documents and the relevant documents alongwith the said
letter. His version reveals that he perused the
relevant papers and after satisfaction that it was a fit
case in which sanction for the prosecution could be
granted, he accorded the sanction vide Exh36. His
version reveals that notesheet was put before him by
the concerned clerical staff member on 13111995. He
approved the proposal on 15111995. He states that on
24111995, the sanction order was drawn by him. His
version reveals that he did not call for the original
record from the office of the A.C.B. and did not peruse
the 7/12 extracts. It is duly proved that the sanction
order (Exh36) has been issued by the competent
authority after due application of his mind to the fact
situation. There is no legal defect in the sanction
order.
14. The version of PW7 Dy.S.P. Shri Khekale lends
corroboration to the case of the prosecution regarding
the demand and payment of the illegal gratification. The
Dy.S.P. (ACB) lodged a detailed FIR (Exh39) after the( 17 )
posttrap panchanama. His version reveals that the
tainted currency notes of Rs. 2000/ were seized from
possession of the appellant No. 2 – Fakirchand. As
stated before, the posttrap panchanama as well as the
FIR (Exh39) do not show that the appellant No. 1
immediately explained his defence of acceptance of the
amount towards small savings contribution. Nor it was
suggested to PW Dy.S.P. Ramesh Khekale that the
appellant No. 1 disclosed to him that the amount was
directed to be utilized for purchases of the small
saving certificates. His version reveals that two (2)
mutation entries bearing mutation entry No. 167 and
mutation entry No. 168 were sanctioned and the relevant
7/12 extracts (Exh42) were recovered from residential
premises of the appellant No. 1 under a seizure
panchanama. The prosecution has duly proved that the
appellant No. 1 did only a part of the work of recording
such mutations and assured the complainant – PW Magan
Bochre to do the work only on receipt of the entire
amount as per his demand. The evidence on record reveals
that the appellant No. 2 Fakirchand was directed by the
appellant No. 1 to receive the amount. The appellant( 18 )
No. 2 accepted the said tainted currency notes at the
relevant time. The fingers of both his hands were found
to bear bluish shining when examined under the
ultraviolet lamp during course of the posttrap
panchanama. Thus, it can be safely said that the
appellant No. 1 demanded amount of Rs. 2500/ from
complainant PW Magan Bochre by way of consideration or
reward to do the official work i.e. recording of the
mutation entries in respect of five (5) parcels of the
lands purchased under the saledeeds. It is duly proved
that the appellant No. 2 accepted the tainted currency
notes at the instance of the appellant No. 1 on
07061995.
15. At this juncture, the legal position may
be noticed. The Apex Court in “State of Andhra Pradesh
v. M. Radha Krishna Murthy” (2009) 5 SCC 117, held that
reversal of conviction on the ground that part of demand
and acceptance was not proved by the prosecution, would
be improper. The Apex Court held that dictum in “Hari
Dev Sharma v. State (Delhi Administration)” (1977) 3 SCC( 19 )
352, did not lay down any rule of universal application.
It has been held that if trap, recovery of money and
chemical test are established and the prosecution
version relating to demand and acceptance of bribe
stands by itself, the conviction could be upheld.
16. In “Hazarilal v. State (Delhi
Administration)” (AIR 1980 S.C. 873), the Apex Court
observed as follows :
“It is not necessary that the passing of money
should be proved by direct evidence. It may
also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The
events which followed in quick succession in
the present case lead to the only inference
that the money was obtained by the accused
from PW3. Under Section 114 of the Evidence
Act the Court may presume the existence of any
fact which it thinks likely to have happened,
regard being had to the common course of
natural events, human conduct and public and
private business, in their relation to facts
of the particular case. One of the
illustrations to Section 114 of the Evidence
Act is that the Court may presume that a( 20 )
person who is in possession of the stolen
goods soon after the theft, is either the
thief or has received the goods knowing them
to be stolen, unless he can account for his
possession. So too, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case the Court
may presume that the accused who took out the
currency notes from his pocket and flung them
across the wall had obtained them from PW3,
who a few minutes earlier was shown to have
been in possession of the notes. Once we
arrive at the finding that the accused had
obtained the money from PW3, the presumption
under Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is immediately attracted. The
presumption is of course rebuttable but in the
present case there is no material to rebut the
presumption. The accused was, therefore,
rightly convicted by the Courts below.”
That was a case in which a police constable was
convicted under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947, on the allegation that he demanded
and received Rs. 60/ from Sri Ram, who was examined as
PW3. In the trial court, the PW3 resiled from his
previous statement and was declared hostile by the( 21 )
prosecution. The official witnesses including the PW8
had spoken to the prosecution version. The tainted
currency notes were recovered from pocket of the police
constable. A contention was raised by the defence that
in the absence of direct evidence to show that the
police constable demanded or accepted bribe money, no
presumption under section 4 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act of 1947 could be drawn merely on the
strength of the recovery of the marked currency notes
from the said police constable. It was in the context
of such fact situation that the Apex Court made the
above observations.
17. In “M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh”
(AIR 2001 SC 318), three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme
Court dealt with somewhat similar case. The Apex Court
held that presumption available under section 20 (1) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. is “compulsory”
and not discretionary. So, where the prosecution proved
that the accused received gratification from the
complainant, it is permissible for the Court to draw( 22 )
legal presumption that said gratification was accepted
as reward for doing public duty. In that case too, the
two material witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2 including the
complainant (PW1) had turned volteface in the trial
Court. They denied having paid any bribe money to the
accused and also denied that he had demanded the bribe
amount. Inspite of such hostility by those witnesses,
the Supreme Court held that legal presumption available
under section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 could be raised in the circumstances and the
version of PW7 DSP could be implicitly relied upon.
18. In “State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram
Pimple” (1984 CRI.L.J. 4), the Apex Court held that
where, in a trap case, the Judge magnified every minor
detail or omission to falsify or throw shadow of doubt
on the prosecution evidence, then it would be very
antithesis of a correct judicial approach to the
evidence of witnesses. It was held that if such a harsh
touch stone is prescribed to prove such a case it will
be difficult for the prosecution to establish any case( 23 )
at all. The Apex Court, in “State of A.P. v. C. Uma
Maheshwara Rao and another” (AIR 2004 S.C. 2042), dealt
with legal presumption available under section 20 (1) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been
observed that such presumption is compulsory when the
factual background is available to reach conclusion that
the accused accepted the tainted currency notes.
19. It may be noticed that there is absolutely
nothing on record to infer that the appellant No. 2 –
Fakirchand was aware about the prior demand of bribe
amount made by the appellant No. 1 to the complainant.
Nor it is the version of complainant PW Magan Bochre
that the appellant No. 2 was made aware about the nature
of payment to be made. The evidence on record does not
show that the appellant No. 2 had intervened in the
transaction for demand of illegal gratification at any
point of time prior to the date of the payment on
07061995. He simply received the amount as per
instructions of the appellant No. 1. He being village
kotwal, it is but natural that he was supposed to act( 24 )
upon instructions of the talathi or other village
officers. Unless there is some material on record to
infer that the appellant No. 2 shared common intention
with the appellant No.1, it is difficult to hold that he
also is guilty of the charge. The learned counsel for
the appellants invited my attention to observations in
“Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje & Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe
v. The State of Maharashtra” (AIR 1990 S.C. 287). It is
observed by the Apex Court that when there was no
evidence at all against the accused No. 1 in that case,
the conviction could not be sustained. It has been
further observed that as regards the accused No.2,
merely because he was entrusted with some money to be
passed on to the respondent No.1, it could not be held
that he was guilty of any of the offences unless it is
established that he was a party to the arrangement and
the arrangement arrived at was that the money would be
handed over to the accused No. 2 to be given over to the
accused No.1. Herein, it is conspicuous that there was
no prior arrangement between the appellant No.1 and the
complainant to pay the amount to the appellant No.2 so( 25 )
that the same money would be passed on to the appellant
No.1. What emerges from the record is that at last
moment, the appellant No. 1 entertained some suspicion
due to presence of PW Shri Baraskar and, therefore, he
directed the unwary appellant No. 2 – Fakirchand to
accept the amount. The latter only followed the
instructions and did nothing more. Hence, the appellant
No. 2 Fakirchand cannot be held guilty of any charge and
is erroneously convicted by the trial Court.
20. The learned counsel for the appellants also
invited my attention to the observations in “V. Venkata
Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police,
A.P.” (2007 CRI.L.J. 754). In the said case, it has
been held that presumption under section 20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be raised when
demand by the accused has not been proved. Reliance is
also sought on “T. Subramanian v. The State of Tamil
Nadu” (AIR 2006 S.C. 836). The fact situation in the
given case is altogether different. It was noticed by
the Apex Court that the complainant was inimical towards( 26 )
the accused. It was further noticed that probable
explanation was given by the accused immediately after
the incident. These circumstances gave rise to serious
doubt about the receipt of tainted currency notes by him
as illegal gratification. In the present case, the
appellant No. 1 did not immediately offer the
explanation which is only in the form of suggestions
given to the witnesses during course of the trial.
Under these circumstances, both the above referred
authorities are inapplicable to the fact situation of
present case. From the proved facts, it is established
that the appellant No. 1 demanded Rs. 2500/ from the
complainant as illegal gratification. It is proved that
on 06061995, he accepted Rs. 2000/ as part of the
bribe amount from the complainant which was given to the
appellant No. 2 at his behest. However, the appellant
No.2 may not be knowing that it was an amount of illegal
gratification.
21. For the reasons aforestated, I have no
hesitation in holding that the impugned judgement to the
extent of conviction of the appellant No. 1 – Keshav is( 27 )
quite legal and proper. However, the impugned judgement
of conviction and sentence to the extent of the
appellant No. 2 – Fakirchand is erroneous and liable to
be interfered with. He deserves acquittal from the
charge.
22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence to the
extent of the appellant No. 2 – Fakirchand for the
offence punishable under section 12 read with section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is set aside.
He stands acquitted of the said charge. The bail bonds
of the appellant No. 2 – Fakirchand be deemed as
cancelled. The fine amount, if deposited by him, be
refunded to him.
The appeal is dismissed to the extent of
conviction of appellant No. 1 – Keshav for the offence
punishable under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13
(2) and under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and the impugned order of sentence awarded to
him on both the counts is confirmed. He shall
immediately surrender to the bail. The learned Special( 28 )
Judge to ensure that the appellant No. 1 – Keshav is
made to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The
learned Special Judge to submit compliance report in
this behalf within four (4) weeks.
[ V.R. KINGAONKAR ]
JUDGE
NPJ/CRIAPL29100
No comments:
Post a Comment