High Court stays conviction of MHADA staffer in graft case

Justice Abhay M Thipsay also took note of a departmental inquiry which concluded that the complainant in the case was initially held ineligible for allotment of the flat but was later made eligible.

[related-post]

In addition, the court also found it strange that the investigating agency, the ACB, did not feel it necessary to investigate the case further.

The facts of this case are rather peculiar, said the court. “Certain material in the form of authentic documents has been obtained by the applicant after his conviction, and this material, if given in evidence, is capable of changing the complexion of the whole case,” Justice Thipsay observed.

Ashok Sonawane, who was working as an assistant in the office of Mhada deputy chief officer, was convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one year imprisonment and slapped with a fine of Rs 10,000.

The allegations were that Sonawane had allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 10,000 from Ravindra Chougule, who had applied for a flat under a Mhada scheme and declared successful in the draw of lots. According to the prosecution, Chougule frequently visited the Mhada office for carrying out documentation and other formalities in getting the flat allotted.

Despite this, he was unable to obtain an allotment letter, and therefore when Chougule approached the official, Sonawane allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs 10,000.

Chougule, however, reported the case to the ACB, which in turn laid a trap and caught Sonawane in the act, according to the prosecution.

Sonawane refuted the allegations against him saying Chougule was actually held to be ineligible for allotment of an apartment under the scheme. He further claimed that the superior officers had changed the entries in the records, altering the word “apatr” (ineligible) to make it “patr” (eligible).

The accused claimed that he refused to keep quiet about the “manipulation” carried out by his superiors and, therefore, apprehending an obstacle, they got him falsely implicated.

Justice Thipsay observed that “indeed”, there was an observation made in departmental inquiry that Chougule was initially declared as ineligible, but later entries in the G form were changed and he was made
eligible.

The HC observed that the “peculiar” facts, documents obtained by Sonawane after the conviction and observations made in the departmental inquiry also, prima facie, support his defence.

“It would be necessary to stay the order of conviction of the applicant, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal. The situation that arises is quite extraordinary and if the order of conviction is not suspended, the applicant is likely to suffer grave and serious prejudice, resulting in injustice,” the court observed.