Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, heard Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1999 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 1 March 1999 passed by the Special Judge, Beed in Special Case No. 55 of 1991. The appellant, Chandrasen Kisanrao Chauhan, an Assistant Police Sub Inspector, was convicted for offences under Section 7(i)(d) and Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The case arose from a complaint by Laxman Vishnu Are, a Kotwal, who alleged that about fifteen days prior to the incident, his family members were assaulted by several persons. His son Rajabhau lodged a complaint at Pimpalner Police Station, but the appellant, then a Head Constable, did not record the names of all assailants. The complainant followed up with applications to higher authorities. Subsequently, the complainant's son Pandurang was taken into custody by the appellant in connection with proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On a Thursday, when the complainant, his two sons, and a surety went to the police station for bail, the appellant demanded Rs.500 as illegal gratification for granting bail to the three persons. The complainant expressed inability to pay, and the appellant reduced the demand to Rs.400. The complainant unwillingly agreed, and the appellant allowed bail after noting down details and accepting the surety's signature. The next day, the appellant informed the complainant that they would have to appear before the Tahsildar, and they were given a date. On the same day, the complainant paid Rs.100 to the appellant, who demanded the balance of Rs.300 to be paid at Nathapur market on Saturday. On 12 January 1991, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and lodged a complaint. A trap was organized with the help of panch witnesses from the Irrigation Department. Pre-trap panchnama was prepared, and three currency notes of Rs.100 each were treated with anthracene powder and placed in the complainant's pocket. The raiding party proceeded to Nathapur. At the market square, the appellant met the complainant, asked for the money, and accepted the notes in his right hand. When he realized the trap, he threw the crumpled notes on the ground, but he was caught by the ACB officials. The notes were recovered, and examination under ultraviolet light confirmed the presence of anthracene powder on the appellant's hands and on the notes. Panchnamas No. 2 and 3 were drawn. The ACB also seized documents, including the complainant's earlier applications and the police station records, noting that entries of arrests were missing from the arrest register. An offence was registered under Sections 7, 12(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as Crime No. 3 of 1991. The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant. The appellant challenged this conviction in the High Court. However, the provided excerpt of the judgment does not contain the arguments of the parties, the court's analysis, or the final decision on the appeal.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104 OF 1999.
