1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.03.1999, passed by the learned Special Judge, Beed, in Special Case No.55 of 1991 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- I/D R.I. for nine months. The appellant-accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/-I/D to suffer R.I. for one year.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under;-

The complainant Laxman Vishnu Are is a Kotwal. 15 days prior to the incident in question i.e. one Sunday evening the persons viz. Rajabhau Kale, Hanumant Shinde, Kacharu Kadam in all 6-7 had assaulted the complainant’s mother, wife and 2 sons. At that time, the complainant was near Hanuman temple. Complainant’s son Rajabhau went to police station on the same day and lodged a complaint. Complainant’s son told him that Head constable Chauhan did not take down the names of all assailants. Hence on the next day complainant gave application to D.S.P. Office Beed, Tahsildar Beed and P.S.I. Pimpalner police station. The complainant mentioned the names of all accused persons. On the next day i.e. on Tuesday the complainant met head constable Chauhan at Beed near Kala Hanuman Thane police chowki. At that time, complainant’s son Pandurang was with him. At same time head constable Chauhan and one constable with him were in civil dresses. Head Constable Chauhan told Kotwal that they are under arrest. Thereafter, complainant told him that he has to take his salary from Tahsil Office. Thereafter Head Constable Chauhan took Pandurang on his motorcycle with him and went away. On the next day i.e. on Wednesday after the arrest of Pandurang he was produced by Head constable Chauhan before Tahsildar, Beed. The complainant halted till 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. He furnished bail for his son. At that time also Head constable Chauhan told the complainant that the complainant and his two sons are yet to be arrested. Head constable Chauhan asked them to come to the police station. Thereupon, the complainant told him that it is too late. The complainant assured head constable Chauhan that they will come to Pimpalner police station on the next day morning. Thereafter, head constable Chauhan asked them to come early.

3. Thereafter on Thursday morning at 11.00 a.m. the complainant met head constable Chauhan in the Pimpalner police station. At that time, surety Vishwanath Jagannath Yeserkar, both the sons of the complainant and the complainant having 7x12 extract with them had been to the police station. Thereafter, head constable Chauhan took the complainant aside. Head constable Chauhan told the complainant that Rs.500/- will be required for bail of three persons i.e. complainant and his two sons. Thereupon, the complainant told that he has no money. Head constable Chauhan then told the complainant that all three will have to go to jail. He further told the complainant that surety would be sent to Beed Court only. Thereafter, the complainant requested head constable Chauhan that he should not do such injustice. Thereupon Head Constable Chauhan asked to pay at least Rs.400/-. Thereafter, the complainant told Head Constable Chauhan that in fact he has no money with him. Head Constable Chauhan told the complainant that he will give bail to all three persons but he will have to give Rs.400/- personally. Thereafter the complainant unwillingly agreed. Head constable Chauhan took surety and complainant’s two sons aside. He noted down their names and ages and released them on bail. He obtained signature of surety. Head Constable Chauhan told that there is no necessity of the 7x12 extract. After furnishing surety when the complainant was going out of the police station