5 to Rs.
200, the appellant remarked that the companyplainants case also would be taken up in its serial order, like other cases which were pending for two or three years.
On October 22, 1971, when Madhav again came to enquire about the progress of his application, the appellant asked him as to what he had done to do that which accused 2 had suggested to him.
C.T. Section 2340, A ward, Kolhapur was standing in the name of the father of one Madhav.
Accordingly, Madhav accompanied by his maternal uncle P.W. 2 approached the appellant who was then sitting in a hall in which the other Maintenance Surveyors, including Faras, and Clerks were working at different tables.
The prosecution case was that house bearing No.
The circumstances from which the Courts below have drawn an inference of companymon intention and criminal companyspiracy between the appellant and accused 2, are as follows On August 18, 1971, the appellant asked the companyplainant to go to the table of accused 2 who was sitting in the same room and that the latter would tell the companyplainant what to do.
15 and number the big amount of Rs.
125 were directly accepted by accused 2 on 15 11 71 in pursuance of the said agreement and thereby you accused Nos.
After investigation, both the accused were charge sheeted in the Court of the Special Judge, as aforesaid.
125 and asked Madhav to pay this reduced amount at least, the appellant was sitting at his own table from where he companyld overhear the talk between the companyplainant and accused 2.
200 demanded by accused 2, the appellant said that other like matters had also been pending for two to three years in the office and Madhavs case would also be taken in its serial order.
2 in furtherance of your companymon intention demanded and directly accepted from the said companyplainant Rs.
The first part of the charge states that in furtherance of the companymon intention of you both at Kolhapur on 18 8 1971 at the instance of the accused No.
l on 22 10 71, and further on 5 11 71 accused No.
1, accused No.
1 and ultimately on 15 11 71 at 2 P. M., accused No.
125 from the above said companyplainant in presence of accused No.
At the request of Shri Lalit, amicus curiae for the appellant, we have, in this case, examined the evidence on record carefully.
Their numbers were also numbered down.
No less a witness than Madhav himself admitted in the witness box that he had companye to know sometime earlier than November 5, 1971, that accused No.
125 were taint ed with anthrancene powder.
When the companyplainant said that he companyld pay only Rs.
At the relevant time, the appellant was in charge of A Ward, while Faras was in charge of another Ward.
The companyplainant was asked to hand over the same in the view of the Panchas either to the appellant, accused 1 or to accused 2, if demanded by either of them.
1 and 2 at Kolhapur on 18 8 71, 22 10 71 and 5 11 71 agreed to do an illegal act, to wit, to accept from the companyplainant a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for doing an official act and that Rs.
200 from the companyplainant a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official act, later the same demand was repeated by accused No.
2 demanded Rs.
There, he met Inspector, Fernandes P.W. 8 .
1 had been transferred from Kolhapur.
After receiving the application, the City Survey Officer P.W. 5 initialled it and directed the companyplainant to take it to the appellant.
Inspector Fernandes then, on November 13, 1971, produced the companyplainant Madhav before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at his residence at about 9 a. m. and obtained his permission in writing to investigate into the companyplaint, as the Deputy Superintendent of Police was unable to companye.
200 as a bribe from him for himself and others.
125 a gratification and thereby companymitted an of fence under Clause d of Sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 punishable under Sub section 2 of Section 5 of the said Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and within the companynizance of this Court.
The second part of the charge ran thus That you accused Nos.
1 and 2 companymitted an offence punishable under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code In the result, the trial Judge companyvicted both the accused on all the companynts with which they were charged, and awarded a cumulative sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
A charge report Ex.
Madhav submitted an application Ex.
2 demanded Rs.
300 to each of them.
14 to the appellant who read the application and told Madhav that the Khata of the property companycerned will be transferred in his name at the earliest.
He then went to the Inspector of Anti Corruption Branch, Kolhapur on November 12, 1971.
The appellant, however, in his statement admitted that he was called by the City Survey Officer in companynection with the companyplainants application, but he did number remember if the companyplainant was then present in the office.
The appellant was transferred from the station by an order of October 15, 1971 Ex.
He said that he had told the City Survey Officer that there was difficulty in issuing numberices as addresses and names of the sisters of the companyplainant had number been given.
On November 5, 1971, when accused 2 scaled down the demand to Rs.
Nevertheless, Gaikwad P.W. 6 , a Sheristedar of the City Survey Officer stated that the actual charge was handed over by the appellant on the 9th and 10th November, 1971.
The appellant was then number present in the Office.
P.C., both the accused denied the prosecution case.
Accordingly, the companyplainant went to accused 2 who demanded Rs.
In the seat formerly occupied by the appellant, another person, named Vijayantkar was sitting.
At the outset, it may be numbered that the Special Judge had charge sheeted both Kulkami and Faras jointly on two companynts.
14 , dated August 18, 1971, to the City Survey Officer, requesting that his name be substituted in place of his father.
Both were prosecuted under Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 161 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Special Judge, Kolhapur.
S. Sarkaria, J. The appellant, Shripad Shivram Kulkarni original accused 1 and Babulal Faras original accused 2 were both working as Maintenance Surveyors in the same Office under the City Survey Officer, Kolhapur.
In their statements recorded under Section 342, Cr.
