The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of evidence can lead to the accused's acquittal.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Thane, in Special Case No. 9 of 1985. By the said judgment and order dated 23-7-1990, the Special Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of the offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian penal Code and of the offences punishable under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant - yeshwant Gosavi was a tenant of one Khandu Koli, owner of a residential chawl. There were in all 9 tenants in the said building. The complainant-Yeshwant gosavi was leader of the tenants who were residing on the ground floor. The prosecution case is that the complainant used to collect electric charges from the tenants and used to make payment of electric bills. The tenants received one bill upto the period ending June, 1984, which was in the sum of Rs. 1768. 25. The tenants claimed that the said bill was excessive and accordingly, an application was made to the Assistant Engineer to look into the matter regarding excessive bill which was charged to the tenants. The last date for making payment of the bill was 16-8-1984 and since the tenants did not make payment of the bill before due date, the electric supply was temporarily suspended by the Maharashtra State electric Board. Thereafter, on 31-1-1984 the tenants made payment of the said bill. However, another bill was received in the sum of Rs. 350/- which was on account of interest for delayed payment of the bill.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that thereafter another bill was received for the period ending September, 1984, which was in the sum of Rs. 1868. 96. The complainant, therefore, contacted the accused, who informed him that he would reduce the bill on payment of Rs. 400/- as bribe. The complainant thereupon approached the Anti Corruption Bureau and a complaint was filed against him. Pretrap panchanama was prepared on 9-1-1985 and the amount was paid to the accused and thereafter accused took out two electricity bills and kept them on the table. After pre-arranged signal was given by the complainant, Rs. 400/- were seized from his left side pocket of his bush-shirt. Offence was registered against him. Sanction to prosecution was awarded by the appropriate authority and charge-sheet was filed. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 23-7-1990 was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences with which he was charged.

( 4 ) THE learned A. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State has taken me through the judgment and order of the trial Court as also the evidence which is brought on record by the prosecution.

( 5 ) FROM the evidence it can be seen that the accused was working as a lower Divisional Clerk in the office of M. S. E. B. at Kalwa, he was entrusted the duty of preparing electricity bills in respect of electric connection at village dighe. P. W. 3-Purshottam Joshi was working as Assistant Accountant in the office of the M. S. E. B. at Bhiwandi. He has stated in his evidence that the disputed bill could have been fabricated by the interested person. He has stated that the bill for the quarter ending September, 1984 was for Rs. 1004. 37. He has further stated that from the abstract entry it can be seen that the figure 1868. 96 was written above the figure 1004. 37. This witness, therefore, admitted that Ex. 24 was a fabricated bill. He has admitted in his cross-examination that blank forms of the bills were openly kept in the office and that any clerk could take any number of blank forms from the place where they were kept in the office. He has further admitted that it was a practice to prepare a single bill without carbon or duplicate bill. He also admitted that rubber stamp of the signature of the Assistant engineer was also openly kept in the office. He further stated in the cross- examination that in case any complaint was received b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document