The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of conclusive evidence can lead to acquittal.

M.T. Joshi, J.

1. Heard both sides. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Special Judge, Nanded vide judgment and order dated 15/2/2002 from the offences punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988, the present appeal is preferred by the State.

2. The prosecution case in short is as under:--

That respondent - Maroti works as a Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad Sub Division at Hadgaon, District - Nanded. During the relevant period, complainant P.W. 1 - Milind Malik Sakle was working as a Road Roller Driver. The T.A. bills of the complainant which were filed on 17/5/1995 were pending in the Office. The respondent was required to process the same. He (complainant) therefore requested the respondent on 4-5 occasions for sanctioning of the bills. On 12/6/1995, at about 1.00 pm., when the complainant visited the Office, at that time, the respondent made a demand of Rs. 175/- as bribe and further warned that unless the same is paid, the bills would not be passed. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 25/- to the respondent and assured to make the balance of the payment later on that is upon receipt of the salary. He received the salary on 13/6/1995. Since the complainant did not want to pay any bribe to the respondent, he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau of Nanded and filed the complaint to this effect on 14/6/1995 at Exhibit 10.

P.W. 5 - Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Anti Corruption Bureau, namely, Devidas Penurkar recorded the complaint and conducted the investigation. On the same day, he thereafter collected two panch witnesses from the Building and Construction Department of Nanded by making request to their Senior, Accordingly, P.W. 2 Baban Deshmukh and Ashok Sone attended the Anti Corruption Bureau Office as the panchas. Thereat, usual exercise of reading over of the complaint, giving demonstration regarding the anthracene powder, collection of decoy money of Rs. 150/- from the complainant, applying the anthracene powder to the decoy money was carried. The decoy money were two currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/-. The amount was kept in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant.

Thereafter, by a private jeep, the raiding party went to Hadgaon at the Office Thereat, P.W. 2 Baban Deshmukh was kept in the company of the complainant to visit the respondent. The respondent was not found in the Office. Therefore, the party went to the house of the respondent. He was however not found there. Therefore, the party again returned back to the Office. At that time, the respondent was however found in the Office.

During talk, the complainant told the respondent that he had brought the amount whereupon the respondent told that all of them would take tea together. Therefore, the complainant, the panch and the respondent went to the canteen which is behind the Office. In the canteen, the respondent made demand of the money. Thereupon, the complainant paid the decoy money to the respondent. He accepted the same and kept it in the pocket of his shirt. Thereupon, the complainant gave signal upon coming out of the canteen. The raiding party reached on the spot. The respondent was caught and, thereafter, the exercise regarding testing the person and the clothes of the concerned under the ultraviolet lamp was undertaken. The hands of the respondent and hands of the complainant were found positive for application of anthracene powder. Panchanama of the same was prepared.

Thereafter the Investigating Officer collected the documents concerning the transaction from the Office. Necessary sanction to prosecute the respondent was obtained by the Investigating Officer from P.W. 4 Anil Diggikar, the then Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad and the chargesheet came to be filed.

3. Before the learned Special Judge, in all five witnesses were examined. Those were P.W. 1/complainant Milind Sakle, P.W. 2 Panch Mr