1. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 24/01/2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Yavatmal in Special Case no. 1 of 1995, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of an offence punishable under section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)

2. Facts briefly stated are:-

The respondent/accused was serving as a Talathi at village Mankopra, Taluka Darwah, District Yavatmal. Dayaram Pundlik Padhen (PW1), who was serving as a Clerk in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Yavatmal, approached the Anticorruption Bureau, Yavatmal (ACB) on 5/10/1993 and gave oral report recorded by Shri.Deshpande (PW4) (See Ex 17). According to the complaint made, the complainant had purchased agricultural land S.No. 58/1 Block no. 206 admeasuring 3 Acres at Mauje Mankopra, from one Pradeep Dashrath singh Thakur. On 27/08/1993, an application was given to Talathi namely Shri.Bobde for taking mutation entry, who assured that the work will be done at Lohi camp and the applicant shall attend when he receives the notice. Complainant waited for notice till 15/09/1993. On that day, he went to Mankopra, but Talathi Bobde was not present. Complainant met Revenue Inspector Gajbhiye and Naib-Tahsildar Godane. Said Gajbhiye told the complainant to prefer application and further told that he will inform Patwari and then notice will be issued. Complainant did not receive notice. Hence, the complainant, on 24/09/1993, approached Talathi again for his work. Talathi Bobde issued notice under Section 150 (2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and asked the complainant to come to the camp. It is alleged that Talathi Bobde had asked that the complainant will have to incur expenses later.

3. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant by learned Additional P.P. that the Sanction to launch prosecution ought to have been held legal and proper. According to Learned Additional P. P., the trial Court ought to have observed that the Sanction was granted to prosecute the accused for the alleged offences after subjective satisfaction about the case for prosecuting the accused. On merits, it is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the evidence of the complainant and panch witness ought to have been appreciated and accepted in the right perspective.

4. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent/accused that notices to the persons interested were issued and the mutation entry was already taken on 20/09/1993 (Vide certified copy Ex.45). At that time itself, the duty of the accused to take the mutation entry stood performed, while alleged demand was made on 04/10/1993. It is a settled principle of law that mutation entry made would not confer any legal title. It is not even evidence of title. It indirectly can produce a result at a later stage when records of rights are periodically checked and corrected. Records of rights when duly corrected later, on the basis of the earlier mutations, then the entries in the revenue records start carrying a presumption of truth, though rebuttable. All the same, it cannot be said that the mutation itself had the legal effect of transferring ownership rights. These entries at best indicate present occupation but have no legal value of title; since no valuable thing nor any pecuniary advantage can be given or conferred upon other.

5. To attract penal liability, it is required that the intention of the accused must be to cause or he must be knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause loss or injury to the public or to any person. In all such type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification. Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is ve