Acceptance of Diwali gift amounts to taking bribe — Court

MUMBAI, MARCH 1: In a landmark verdict, a special court hearing graft cases on Wednesday held that acceptance of Diwali `Bakshish' (gift) ...

MUMBAI, MARCH 1: In a landmark verdict, a special court hearing graft cases on Wednesday held that acceptance of Diwali `Bakshish’ (gift) amounted to illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The order was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge S P Kukaday who ordered a sanitary inspector of the civic body here to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 1,000 for accepting bribe.

P Satyadasan was sentenced to jail terms for one year each for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences would run concurrently. While Section 7 deals with accepting bribes, the other one pertains to misconduct of a public servant.

Story continues below this ad

However, the sentences were suspended for a month to enable the accused to move the High Court in appeal.

The accused was working as sanitary inspector in Ward E of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation during November 1990 to January 8, 1992. On December 16, 1991, a flour mill owner at Nagpada here filed a complaint with Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) alleging that the Inspector had demanded Rs 500 for condoning penalty for delay in paying licence fee of his shop.

In 1980, the complainant, Budhiram Parabhuram Gaund, took over the mill on lease without entering into agreement with a landlady who used to renew the licence every year, Public Prosecutor Manohar Kandalkar informed the court.

However, for the first time in December 1991, Guand was asked to renew the licence. Accordingly, he approached the accused who demanded Rs 410 as licence fee and Rs 500 as Diwali `Bakshish’ (gift) for himself to fulfil the task.

Story continues below this ad

The complainant in turn informed the mill owner who told her son-in-law to look into the matter. The latter advised Gaund to obtain in writing the details of payment from the accused. Accordingly, Gaund visited the ward office and the Satyadasan gave a written chit indicating payment of Rs 550 as licence fee and Rs 500 as `extra’ (deemed to be bribe).

A trap was laid on December 18, 1991 and the complainant gave the money in the presence of a panch witness who later turned hostile in the court saying that he had not heard talks about the illegal gratification.

However, an ACB officer who was within ten feet distance from the accused had heard him asking for the bribe amount. The court relied upon his evidence.