As per the prosecution's case, the complainant, a widow Nilabai Samudre, used to receive a monthly grant of Rs100, under the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojna, through post. For a few months prior to July 1998, she had not received the same, so she approached the office of the teshildar for the same.
Holding that a conspiracy was hatched to trap two government officials the Bombay High Court recently acquitted a clerk and peon attached to the teshildar's office in Beed district for demanding and accepting a graft of Rs150 in 1998.
Justice M T Joshi acquitted Ganesh Gade and Sayyed Khaja, sentenced to two years and one year respectively, under sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court while acquitting them observed: "Merely because the decoy money was found on the person of the appellant – Sayyed, would not lead us to irrefutable presumption that the appellant – Ganesh has made the demand of bribe and both of them in collusion with each other have accepted the said amount as the bribe amount."
As per the prosecution's case, the complainant, a widow Nilabai Samudre, used to receive a monthly grant of Rs100, under the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojna, through post. For a few months prior to July 1998, she had not received the same, so she approached the office of the teshildar for the same. It is alleged that there the accused Gade asked for Rs300 to clear dues of Rs500. After bargaining the amount was settled to Rs150, which was to be paid on August 3, 1998, in his office.
Since the complainant did not wish to pay the bribe amount she approached the anti-corruption office, based on which a trap was laid and the accused came to be arrested. During the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses, and based on their testimony the trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced them in the year 2001. This order has been challenged in the high court.
In their defence the accused said that the complaint was completely misconstrued and well thought off. It was pointed out in court that the investigating officer, panch witness and the complainant were living in the same vicinity. Furthermore, the woman was used as a front by some other person to get to the public servants. The woman, who could not travel to the ACB office, had to lodge a complaint on her own.
Advocates for the accused also argued that Gade had told the complainant that she could not be given the grant as her children had started earning and if the teshildar passes a written order only then he could process her request. Accordingly he had written her name on a chit of paper and given to Sayyed to take her to the teshildar, when the trap came to be executed.
The prosecution opposed the argument and said that it had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court accepted the defense arguments and set aside the conviction order.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "HC")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}