Appellant faces punishment as court finds no merit in the appeal: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court passed a judgement on 29th July of 2022 in which it quashed the appeal of the appellant as it found no merit in the appeal. This was seen in the case of Manohar Sahadev Parab Vs The State Of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 247 Of 2009) and this case was presided over by The Honourable Mr. Justice A.S. Gadkari.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Appellant was working as the Talathi of the said village at the relevant time and the said property was in possession of Mr. Nabhiraj Magadum, the father of the complainant, Mr. Nitin Magadum, since the year 1974. As the said land was being cultivated by Mr. Nabhiraj Magadum since the year 1974, the original landlord, Mr. Anant Joshi decided to sell it to the complainant. The Complainant accordingly filed an Application before Tahasildar for deletion of names of Mr. Annasaheb Magadum and Mr. Appasaheb Magadum and this was passed as an order by the Tahilsdar. The said Order was handed over by the complainant Mr. Nitin Magadum to the Appellant and the complainant Mr. Nitin Magadum purchased the said land from Mr. Anant Joshi for a consideration of Rs.42,000 by executing a Sale Deed in the name of his sons namely Darshan and Bhushan who were minors. After purchase of the said land, the complainant Mr. Nitin Magadum forwarded one application to the office of the Appellant by registered post for effecting mutation in the revenue record on the basis of the said registered Sale-Deed and he received acknowledgment of the same.
Mr. Nitin Magadum contacted Appellant in his office and inquired about the Order passed by the Tahasildar for deleting names of Mr. Annasaheb and Mr. Appasaheb Magadum. At that time the Appellant informed Mr. Nitin Magadum that, an amount of Rs.4,000 was required for the said work and when Mr. Nitin Magadum questioned why such an amount was required,the Appellant informed him that, he was not knowing the transactions. Mr. Magadum informed the Appellant that, he was not in a capacity to pay an amount of Rs.4,000 and the Appellant asked him to leave his office. Subsequently, in the month of February again the complainant contacted the Appellant and made inquiry about his work. However, the Appellant informed him that, he was busy in some other work and asked the complainant to come later on. The appellant in the next inquiry by the complainant, informed Mr. Magadum that in order to the work at least a sum of Rs. 2000 was required. This was clearly a bribe.
The learned Special Judge of Ichalkaranji convicted the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a total fine of Rs.10,000.
The Appellant in his appeal has questioned the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Order.
JUDGEMENT:
The court after perusing through the entire evidence on record, came to a safe conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In view thereof, the court said the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate for the Appellant are of no help to him as the facts in the said decisions differ from the facts of the case in hand.
The court finds that the trial court has not committed any error in either law or facts while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the court found no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.
The court also said, the Appellant is directed to surrender before the trial Court for undergoing balance of sentence within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of present Judgment on the official website of Bombay High Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY TANAV ZACHARIAH.