Pandurang Keshav Jamble vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 2017 Bom

                                                                       201-Apeal-272-
Shambhavi                                1998.odt
N. Shivgan
Digitally signed by    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Shambhavi N.
Shivgan                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date: 2021.02.01
14:07:41 +0530
                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.272 OF 1998

                      Pandurang Keshav Jamble
                      Age: 55 years, Occ: Service,
                      R/o. 1108, 'E' Ward, Shahupuri,
                      2nd Lane, Near B.T.College,
                      Kolhapur.                              ... Appellant
                           Vs
                      The State of Maharashtra              ... Respondents
                                                  ...

                      Mr. Swapnil S. Ovalekar for the Appellant.

                      Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State.

                                CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
                                RESERVED ON :  25th JANUARY, 2021.
                                PRONOUNCED ON : 1st FEBRUARY, 2021.

                      JUDGMENT:

The appellant, a City Survey Ofcer in the

Revenue Department of the State of Maharashtra, has been

convicted of the ofences punishable under Sections 7,

13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 ('Act' for short) and sentenced to sufer rigorous

imprisonment for one year and fne of Rs.1,000/-, in default

Shivgan 1/9 201-Apeal-272-

1998.odt to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2 Prosecution's case unfolded in the evidence is;

Complainant's father, Rama died in April, 1991. In

September, 1991, he applied to enter the names of heirs of

late Rama in records of lands bearing CTS Nos.827, 832,

886 and 9043 maintained by the Revenue Department. The

appellant, revenue ofcer, demanded Rs.200/- to process

his request and for issuing property register cards in

respect of four lands as aforesaid. Complainant paid

Rs.125/- to him somewhere in October, 1991 leaving the

balance of Rs.75/-. Whereafter, the complainant was called

by the accused in the ofce on 22nd October, 1991 and

again on 28th October, 1991, but by that time, application

was not processed. On 28th October, 1991, accused

demanded Rs.100/- (balance Rs.75+25), reward for issuing

property register cards. Following that he lodged the

complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau.

Shivgan                                                   2/9
                                                  201-Apeal-272-
                  1998.odt



3         After   drawing     verifcation    and     pre-trap

panchanamas, raiding party proceeded to the ofce of the

appellant-accused. Mr. Koregawe, Panch Witness (P.W.2)

accompanied the complainant. Evidence would disclose

that accused handed over, four property register cards;

whereupon he demanded and accepted, Rs.100/- from the

complainant. Raiding party after giving signal, rushed to

ofce and apprehended the appellant and recovered

Rs.100/-, 'tainted currency', notes from his possession.

4 The learned Trial Judge upon appreciating the

evidence, convicted the appellant as stated above and

hence, this Appeal.

5 The defence of the accused is, that on 28 th

October, 1991, complainant had applied for certifed copies

of the property register cards and survey maps of the land

survey nos.827, 832, 886 and 904. Thus, Rs.100/- were paid

Shivgan 3/9 201-Apeal-272-

1998.odt towards fees of the maps. Strong reliance has been placed

on Exhibit 24. Vide this exhibit, complainant applied for

certifed copies of the property register cards and survey

maps as required by the bank. Complainant admits this

fact.

6 Thus, question that falls for consideration is;

"whether Rs.100/- allegedly demanded and accepted by the

accused was "illegal gratifcation" other than legal

remuneration as motive for processing his application and

for issuing property register cards and survey maps of lands

in question or whether it was towards 'Fees' for obtaining

the survey maps of the lands in question ?"

7 It may be stated that the Maharashtra Land

Revenue (Inspection, Search and Supply of Copies of Land

Records) Rules, 1970 regulates procedure and prescribes

fees for supply of copies of land records.

Shivgan                                                         4/9
                                                             201-Apeal-272-
                     1998.odt



8          To answer this question, evidence of Sirajuddin

Mulla (P.W.2), immediate superior ofcer of the appellant

and the evidence of Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune

Division is relevant. Siraj deposed entire procedure

contemplated under Sections 148 and 149 of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in relation to record of

rights and acquisition of rights to be reported . He testifed

that two days before 29th October, 1991 (a day on which

trap was laid), he had supplied survey maps to the ofce of

the accused. Another witness, Deputy Director in his

evidence has placed on record, schedule of fees prescribed

by the Government Photo Zink Press, Pune to be charged

for supplying survey maps. Minimum fees prescribed is

Rs.49/- per map of specifed size.

8A. In the back-drop of the evidence of these two

witnesses, let me now assess the evidence of Satappa

Gopal Chandrekar (P.W.5), who was working as peon in the

Shivgan 5/9 201-Apeal-272-

1998.odt ofce of the accused. His evidence suggests that on 27 th

October, 1991, ofce of the accused had received survey

maps of fve villages; but same were not sorted out as per

the villages and wards. He stated that on 30 th September,

1991 (a month before the trap), complainant visited ofce

of the accused and paid fne of Rs.5/- as he did not report

death of his father and acquisition of rights by succession in

relation to lands in question within the prescribed period.

His evidence further suggests that on 30 th September,

1991, complainant had also asked for two maps and

accused told him, charges for the same would be Rs.98/-.

9 Thus, conjoint reading of the evidence of,

Chandrekar, peon (P.W.5), Sirajuddin Mulla (P.W.2)-

Immediate Superior Ofcer of the accused and of P.W.4-

Deputy Director of Land Records, fortify two facts;

(I) that complainant required, copies of

property register cards and survey maps of the

subject lands, as is evident from Exhibit 24, and;

Shivgan                                                            6/9
                                                        201-Apeal-272-
                     1998.odt

(ii) that scheduled fee was Rs.48/- per map.

Admittedly, the trap was laid on 29 th October, 1991 and

on the same day, complainant had applied for certifed

copies of the map. Evidence on record leads to believe

that maps could not be supplied on 30th September,

1991, since and by that date, maps were not supplied to

the ofce of the accused. Immediate superior of the

accused testifed that maps were supplied to the ofce of

the accused two days before 29th October, 1991.

10 As a matter of fact, evidence of Koregawe leads

to believe that accused after handing over property register

card extracts, assured the complainant to give survey maps

later and enquired whether he had brought money as

agreed. This version of the witness cannot be read in

isolation but in conjunction with the evidence of Chandrekar

(P.W.5). So much so that Chandrekar said, on 30 th

September, 1991 when complainant visited ofce of the

Shivgan 7/9 201-Apeal-272-

1998.odt accused and asked for survey maps, he was told charges

for the same would be Rs.98/-. Indisputably, complainant

applied for certifed copies of the maps on 28 th October,

1991, a date on which trap was laid. In the given set of

facts, prosecution evidence does not prove beyond

reasonable doubt that Rs.100/- were demanded and

accepted by the appellant as reward or illegal gratifcation

for processing the application and/or for giving property

extracts and/or for supply of survey maps of the land in

question. Thus, 'beneft of doubt' is extended to the

appellant.

11 Thus, in consideration of the facts of the case, the

evidence on record and for the reasons stated here-in-

above, question is answered accordingly.

12 Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence dated

24th December, 1997 in Special Case No.6 of 1992 passed

by the Special Judge, Kolhapur, is set aside. Bail bond

Shivgan 8/9 201-Apeal-272-

1998.odt

stands cancelled. Sureties are discharged.

13 Fine amount to be refunded to the appellant.

                             (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)




Shivgan                                                  9/9