The judgment establishes the importance of evidence of prior demand and the need for independent corroboration in trap cases, emphasizing the unreliable nature of the prosecution's case and the biased circumstances surrounding the trap.

JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J.:---The appellant original accused No. 1 in Special Case No. 10/88 on the file of Special Judge, Nasik, has challenged his conviction and consequent sentence of R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 600/-, in default of payment of fine further S.I. for two months under section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or alternatively under section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:-Appellant was working as Forester, whereas the 2nd accused was working as a Forest Guard.

Complainant Bapu Gavit (P.W. 1) resident of village Sambarpada had constructed a hut in his land. It was in dilapidated condition and he wanted to repair and practically re-construct the same. He therefore, approached the appellant for permission to reconstruct the hut. The appellant declined to give permission and thereafter complainant again approached him with the same request. Appellant did not grant permission but expressed that if complainant desired to re-construct the hut, he would be required to pay Rs. 600/- to the appellant by way of illegal gratification. However, complainant expressed in-ability to pay. Thereafter complainant re-constructed the hut and after about 7/8 days the appellant in company of other co-accused noticed the re-constructed hut. He enquired from the complainant as to how the hut was re-constructed and threatened him that in case appellant is not satisfied by him by making payment of gratification amount of Rs. 600/- appellant would drag him to Police Station by beating him and would also prosecute him. Complainant told him that he has not made use of forest wood for reconstruction of the hut. He has not committed any theft but the accused did take measurements and warned him that unless the appellant is paid Rs. 600/-, he will have to suffer prosecution. After 2/3 days again the appellant went to the village and called the complainant through village Kotwal. He went in the company of Waghmare to the house of appellant No. 1 wherein co-accused was also present and the appellant again gave him threat that he would be prosecuted unless payment of gratification is made and even suggested that complainant may obtain loan if he has no money and pay him Rs. 600/- as demanded whereupon complainant assured that he would manage some how to collect Rs. 600/- and make the payment on weekly bazar day i.e. Sunday. Thereafter complainant borrowed Rs. 600/- from Adivasi Forest Labour Workers' Society and approached Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Nashik. He lodged a complaint on 21-11-1987. Thereafter he was asked by Anti Corruption Bureau officers to come back on the next day i.e. on 22-11-1987 at about 7.00 a.m. According to the prosecution in the meanwhile, the Police Inspector of Anti Corruption Department, Chandrakant Bankar (P.W. 3) issued request letters to B C departments for deputing two employees to act as panch witnesses and accordingly (P.W. 2) Pagare and one A.N. Taru were deputed to act as panch witnesses.

3. On 22-11-87 complainant went to the A.C.B. Office, Nashik at about 7.00 a.m. Thereafter all the procedure required for trap was followed and pre-trap panchanama was drawn in which the currency notes of Rs. 600/- (5 x Rs. 100 and 2 x Rs. 50) were produced by the complainant. The anthracene powder was then applied to both sides of each of the currency notes and after the entire procedure was over a panchanama was drawn (pre-trap). Necessary instructions were given to the complainant and the panch witnesses. (P.W. 2) Ashok Pagare was asked to accompany the accused and other panch witness was directed to remain in company of the raiding party. At about 8.40 a.m. the raiding party reached the village and after parking the jeep at some distance from forest rest house. Complainant and (P.W. 2) Ashok Pagare were asked to go ahead and approach appellant and the raiding party followed them. The appellant saw complainant Bapu Gavit (P.W.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document