The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for precision in framing charges and the need for valid sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment also emphasizes the necessity of proving the demand of illegal gratification and the importance of consistent and reliable evidence.

1. The appellant, who was, at the material time, working as a Sectional Engineer in the Public Works Department, Indapur, Sub-Division, Pune, was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge, Baramati, after holding a trial, found the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each count, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction as delivered by the learned Special Judge, Baramati and the sentences imposed by him, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Appeal.

2. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court, in brief, may be stated thus:

One Bharat Gulabrao Raje-Bhosale (PW 1), a Government Contractor, was given a contract in respect of the construction of a road. The estimated cost of the work was Rs.24,00,000/-. Raje-Bhosale had paid a security deposit of Rs.48,000/- in the office of the Executive Engineer. Raje-Bhosale commenced the work in the month of February 1997 and was receiving payments from the PWD from time to time, and in a phase-wise manner. In the month of March 1997, Raje-Bhosale received a payment of Rs.5,00,000/- under the first bill. In the month of April 1997, the appellant and the Deputy Engineer – one Rajole – had demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Raje-Bhosale by way of bribe. As Raje-Bhosale did not pay that amount to them, they started creating difficulties for Raje-Bhosale. Rajole stopped the supply of asphalt, and got the work delayed. Raje-Bhosale had to meet the Executive Engineer, and complaint about Rajole and Desai (appellant). It is only thereafter, that Raje-Bhosale could carry out further work. Again, when the next bill was collected, Rajole and the appellant again demanded a bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- from Raje-Bhosale and threatened that if he would not pay the amount, they would stop the asphalt supply. Raje-Bhosale completed the work by May 1998, and sent a letter to the Executive Engineer informing it. Raje-Bhosale has requested to pay his final bill. He met the Executive Engineer Shri Ashtapure, who, after inspection of the work, directed Rajole and the appellant to submit the final bill. The appellant prepared final bill, but it was incomplete. When Raje-Bhosale requested the appellant to prepare a final bill, he told Raje-Bhosale that Raje-Bhosale would have to pay 2% of the whole bill (i.e. Rs.24,00,000/-) to the appellant and another 2% of the whole bill to Rajole. (i.e. total Rs.84,000/-) Raje-Bhosale paid Rs.20,000/- to the appellant immediately. Appellant then prepared a bill for Rs.3,50,000/-, though actually the bill of Raje-Bhosale was for more than Rs.5,50,000/-. Raje-Bhosale then again met the Executive Engineer Shri Ashtapure, who asked Deputy Engineer Salokhe (who had come in place of Deputy Engineer Rajole) to prepare and submit final bill of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, there was discussion between the appellant and Raje-Bhosale and the appellant asked Raje-Bhosale to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/-, instead of Rs.84,000/- as previously demanded. On 10th July 1998 at about 9.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. Raje-Bhosale made a telephone call to the appellant at his residence and told him that he would be coming to the house of the appellant between 5.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. The appellant then said that Raje-Bhosale should give Rs.50,000/- to him, when Raje-Bhosale told him that on that day, he would give about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and that, the remaining he would give after he would get the payment of the bill. The appellant agreed to this. Raje-Bhosale then went to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune at about 11.00 a.m. to 12 noon. He had taken an amount of Rs.15,000/- with him. He met Satish Ahire (PW 4), Inspector in that depa