1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This appeal is filed challenging judgment and order dated 18.03.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Court at Beed in Special Case No. 01/1990.

2. The facts of the case are extensively stated in the impugned judgment from paragraph No. 02 to 08, same are not necessary to be reproduced herein, because the very impugned judgment states the facts elaborately.

3. This is an appeal against the acquittal filed by the State. The learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Relying on the evidence of the complainant the learned A.P.P. would submit that, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of Rs. 800/from the respondent. According to the learned A.P.P. so far demand is concerned on 09th August, 1989 there is evidence of P.W. 1/panch which corroborates the evidence of the complainant. The panch witness has specifically stated about the demand of amount by the respondent herein. It is further stated that, when the evidence of the complainant on demand, acceptance and recovery is corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of the panch witness Babu Gujar, in that case the Special Court was not correct in acquitting the respondent. The learned A.P.P. also invited my attention to the arguments advanced before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. would submit that, this appeal may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed written notes of arguments and orally submitted that there is no evidence against the respondent. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the case and the story put forth by the prosecution is doubtful. There are material contradictions, improvements and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The defence of the accused is that, two to three days prior to 09/08/1989, the complainant Ankush along with Baliram Banait came to the office of accused and asked the accused to mutate their names. The accused pointed out that, one month time would be required, since notices are to be served on the concerned parties. However, the complainant Ankush and his companion Baliram were insisting to carry mutation without issuing notices to the vendor. In spite of insistence of complainant, the accused refused to take immediate mutation without following the process of law. Hence the complainant was enraged and filed false report against him. It is further defence of the accused/respondent that, on 09/08/1989 he has worked in the office till 12.30 p.m. and left to Tahsil Office. His office was open. He requested Shri Parad to keep watch on the office. When he returned back, Shri Parad told him that, somebody had been to his office. When he entered his office, the complainant Ankush, one Babu Gujar (panch witness) and Dy. S. P. Bhaurao Chavan arrived at his office. Dy. S. P. Bhaurao Chavan made enquiry about bribe money. Thereupon complainant disclosed that, money is kept in cup board. The Dy. S. P. Bhaurao Chavan threatened the accused/respondent and compelled him to take out the money from the cup board. The amount was secretly planted by complainant in his cup board, while he was out of his office. As such, the accused/respondent is falsely involved in the office. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that, the Trial Court after appreciation of evidence concluded that, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification and pleased to acquit the accused. The counsel further submitted that, the Trial Court discarded the version of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 1, P.W. 2. There is material inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant with an intention to harass the respondent/accused has filed the false complaint