Mahesh Subashchandra Sindagi vs State Of Goa & Anr

1. Appellant at the relevant time was posted as Junior Telecom Officer at the Calangute Telephone Exchange Goa and according to the prosecution PW.1, Francis M. D'Souza (hereinafter referred to as the `complainant') had applied on 6th April, 1999 for shifting of his telephone connection from his old residence at House No.445 at Saligaon to his new residential premises at Calangute. The Commercial Officer, Goa Telecom Division issued Advice Note dated 4th May, 1999 for shifting of Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 2 the telephone connection from his old residence to the new residence. The said Advice Note for shifting the telephone connection was marked to the appellant on 5th May, 1999. The complainant handed over those papers to one Mrs. Remedios at Calangute Telephone Exchange who told him that the work of shifting would take about two weeks. The complainant pleaded that he needs shifting of the telephone connection urgently whereupon said Mrs. Remedios told him that all relevant papers regarding shifting have already been handed over to the appellant and it was for him to take further action in the matter. The complainant thereafter contacted the appellant who told him that there were no spare lines to provide connection but promised to do his best to shift his telephone connection as early as possible.

2. Further case of the prosecution is that on 25th June, 1999 complainant contacted the appellant for shifting of the telephone connection and he came to the complainant's house at about 1 P.M. The complainant took the appellant for lunch and at that time appellant told him that in case he was paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- in addition to Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- to be Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 3 paid to the Lineman he would give the connection on 28th June, 1999. The amount was later on reduced to Rs.2,000/-. As the connection was not given on 28th June, 1999, complainant spoke to the appellant over telephone and he replied that there being no additional line and further due to the shortage of the staff the work had not been executed. In order to verify the explanation given by the appellant complainant contacted the local Lineman who told him that additional lines were available and it was for the appellant to get work executed. Complainant being aggrieved by the delay in shifting of the telephone connection and demand of illegal gratification by the appellant met the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Central Bureau of Investigation and gave his complaint. After following the necessary procedure a raid was organized and complainant along with PW.2, Anand Naik came to the house of the complainant where the appellant had promised to come at 1.30 P.M. on 29th June, 1999. However, the appellant did not turn up on the said day and when contacted by the complainant he told him that he was held up but promised to come on the next day at about 1 P.M. Therefore according to the prosecution, the complainant along with the raiding party returned to the office Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 4 of Central Bureau of Investigation and returned the amount of Rs.2,000/- which was kept ready to be paid to the appellant.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that on 30th June, 1999 the complainant spoke to the appellant from the shop of one Alfran and the conversations between them have been tape-recorded and after having come to know that the appellant would come to the house of the complainant the Central Bureau of Investigation arranged to have audio and video recording. The prosecution has further alleged that the appellant came to the residence of the complainant between 1.30 P.M. to 2 P.M. and as soon as he was spotted near the compound gate the audio and video systems were switched on and the members of the raiding party concealed themselves in the bedroom of the complainant. The complainant introduced PW.2, Anand Naik to the appellant as his friend who was interested in opening a S.T.D. booth in the name of his wife.

4. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses and a large number of documents were also exhibited. In his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code the appellant denied the case of the prosecution and his plea was that he had neither demanded nor accepted any illegal gratification. His further plea was that he was on leave from 30th May, 1999 to 14th June, 1999 and went to Sholapur and collected Rs.41,000/- to purchase a motorcycle, whereas its cost was Rs.46,000/-. According to him when he met the complainant, he enquired about the purpose of leave and on being told that Crl.A. No. 1215 of 2004 6 he had gone for collecting loan for purchasing a motorcycle and short of money, volunteered to give him Rs.3,000/-. According to the appellant he was avoiding to take the loan but was repeatedly asked by the complainant to come to his residence and collect the loan.

5. The trial court on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/-

6. Hence, appeal.

PW.2, Anand Naik is a Panch witness who had supported the case of the prosecution. True it is that in the cross-

11. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the sentence.

................................................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] ................................................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI OCTOBER 06, 2010.