Assistant charity commissioner gets 3 yrs in jail for graft

MUMBAI: An assistant charity commissioner was sentenced to three years in prison for accepting a bribe of ₹5 lakh to ensure a favourable order. Anil Shingne was convicted by a special Prevention of Corruption Act court on Monday. The court, however, has stayed its sentence to allow Shingne to approach the Bombay high court. Shingne has also been granted bail.

Shingne allegedly asked for a bribe of ₹50 lakh from a lawyer, Shaharnaj Soharab Pavri, on December 31, 2010, to help her with a case being heard by the Charity Commission in Pune — where he was employed as a judicial officer earlier.

Pavri’s case is related to a land deal. Pavri said she had a farm house covering 11 acres at Maval, Pune. In 2007, she said two people, Chunnilal Chhajed and Vilas Mutha, approached her to buy the land for ₹90 lakh. They said they wanted the land to build a religious structure. While Pavri and the two men signed an agreement, she was yet to receive the final payment. However, despite this, she claimed that Chhajed and Mutha already approached the charity commission at Pune and registered the land as their trust office. Pavri approached the commission, and her application came up for hearing before Shingne. On March 31, 2008, he allowed Pavri’s plea, saying it is maintainable in court. The other two men challenged the order in a higher forum. Meanwhile, Shingne was transferred to Mumbai from Pune. Pavri said he kept calling and messaging her even after his transfer.

Pavri said Shingne promised her a favourable order through other officers. She said she did not do anything till August, but Shingne kept asking for money, after which she filed a complaint with the chief charity commissioner.

As there was no action, Shingne kept demanding money, and Pavri filed a complaint with the anti-corruption bureau, whose officers caught Shingne accepting the ₹5 lakh. Shingne, in his defense, claimed the money was not a bribe, but that he had arranged a loan of ₹7 lakh for Pavri from his friend and that the amount he accepted was towards the repayment of that loan. The defense also argued that the prosecution had not obtained any valid sanction.