The Bombay high court has suspended conviction of Ashok Sonawane, deputy chief officer, MHADA, who was convicted of allegedly accepting bribe from an individual who had applied for a Mhada flat, claiming to be eligible.
In an unusual case, the Bombay high court has suspended conviction of Ashok Sonawane, deputy chief officer, Mhada, who was convicted of allegedly accepting bribe from an individual who had applied for a MHADA flat, claiming to be eligible.
Sonawane acquired some documents under the RTI Act which showed that a departmental inquiry had proved him innocent and stated that manipulation of documents had been done by two of his superiors.
What did the judge say?
Justice Abhay Thipsay suspended Sonawane's conviction observing: "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly because of the copies of the documents obtained by the applicant after his conviction, as well as the observations made in the departmental inquiry held against the applicant, prima facie, support the defence put forth by the applicant during the trial; it would be necessary to stay the order of conviction of the applicant, pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal."
When did Sonawane file his plea with HC?
Sonawane's sentence was already suspended, while his appeal was admitted by the HC earlier. He had then filed an application before the HC after acquiring information through the RTI Act. He had also sought that he be allowed to produce fresh evidence before the HC during hearing in his appeal, which, as per norm, isn't allowed.
Why was he arrested and what did he contend?
According to the prosecution, Sonawane was apprehended while demanding bribe from one Ravindra Chougule for issuing him an 'allotment letter' after he was declared successful in a lottery of the Mhada housing scheme.
Sonawane had contended that Chougule was found to be ineligible and that his superiors had dishonestly changed the entries in the relevant record. As the superiors felt that they may face some difficulty, they decided to implicate him, he had alleged.The trial court, however, convicted him under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to one year of imprisonment and fining him Rs10,000.
How did he prove his case?
He then acquired fresh documents under the RTI Act on the departmental inquiry into the entire episode. It supported his stand, concluding that Chougule was initially declared 'ineligible', but later, the entries in the G-form were changed and he was made 'eligible'. The entries are said to have changed by one Pore. It also appears that this was done at the instance of one Kshirsagar.
The judge observed that hearing in the appeal will take time and, in view of the new facts, it was necessary to suspend the conviction, otherwise it's likely to cause "grave and serious prejudice, resulting in injustice". The HC has also allowed to record additional evidence during the hearing in appeal.
){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}
 "bribery")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}