Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `Act'). The learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, convicted the appellant and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

The appellant was appointed as a Minimum Wages Inspector (Agriculture), in the month of June, 1984, by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad. At the relevant time he was serving at Osmanabad. The appellant visited the land belonging to complainant, Shivaji Bandu Padwal which is situated at village Upala, taluka and district Osmanabad on 22nd of April, 1989. In fact, this land stands in the name of the wife and two sons of Shivaji Padwal in the revenue record. Laxman Kadam (PW-5) was in the employment of Shivaji Padwal on yearly basis. He was present in the field at the relevant time. Appellant made enquiry with regard to his service conditions. Laxman Kadam (PW5) told that his yearly salary was fixed at Rs.3,000/-. He did not supply necessary information with regard to holidays and hours of the work. He was not aware about the register to be maintained by the employer with regard to yearly servants.

The appellant issued a notice dated 24.4.1989 to Shivaji Padwa1 (PW-1) and asked him to see him in his office in connection with service conditions of his yearly servant. Shivaji Padwal (PW-1) did not respond to the said notice. Thereafter, appellant issued another notice on 25.5.1989 to Shivaji Padwal and asked him to see him in his office with required registers. However, Shivaji Padwal did not respond to the second notice. Shivaji Padwal visited the office of the appellant on 1.6.1989 and 15.6.1989. However, appellant was not present in the office and, therefore, Shivaji Padwal could not see appellant.

Shivaji Padwal went to the office of the appellant on 22.6.1989. He met accused in the office at about 2.00 p.m. Appellant made enquiry with Shivaji Padwal and asked him whether he had maintained register with regard to service conditions of his yearly servant Laxman Kadam. Shivaji Padwal told appellant that he had not maintained a register. However, he promised him to keep the register in future and produce the same before him for the purpose of inspection. It is the prosecution's case that appellant demanded Rs.100/-from Shivaji Padwal for dropping the action for not maintaining the register. Shivaji Padwal had no money that day and therefore promised him to pay Rs.100/- later.

On 20.7.1989, Shivaji Padwal went to the office of the appellant. Appellant demanded Rs.100/- from him. Shivaji Padwal (PW1) had no money with him that day, however, he promised appellant to fulfil his demand. Appellant asked Shivaji Padwal (PW 1), to maintain register and asked him to come on 27.7.1989. On 27.7.1989 at 10.30 a.m. Shivaji Padwal (PW-1) went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and contacted Dy. S.P. Shetkar (PW 11) and told him about the demand of appellant for illegal gratification. Shetkar (PW-11) recorded the complaint Exh. 16 lodged by Shivaji Padwal (PW-1). Dy. S.P. Shetkar (PW 11) immediately called two independent panchas, namely, Kashinath Gore (PW-2) and Madhukar Kulkarni from the Accounts Department of Zilla Parishad. In response to the requisition, Kashinath Gore (PW-2) and Madhukar Kulkarni appeared in the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau. Shetkar apprised them about the complaint of Shivaji Padwal. Shetkar (PW-11) then arranged a trap. Shivaji Padwal presented one currency note of denomination of Rs.50/-and five currency notes of denomination of Rs.10/-. The currency notes were treated with anthracene powder. Shetkar (PW-11) told Shivaji Padwal and two panchas about the