The main legal point established is that demand of illegal gratification is crucial for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and a valid prosecution sanction must meet specific requirements.

This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nanded in Special (ACB) Case No.2 of 1994 convicting the Appellant for the offences punishable Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as under:

2. Prosecution case in brief is as under :

On 12th September, 1993 Madhukar and Ramesh brothers-in-law of Complainant Shivram Tukaram Kharde were arrested by Shivajinagar Police Station, Nanded. They were taken to Tahsil office in the evening. Accused was serving as junior clerk in Tahsil office. He was to assist senior clerk PW6 Padhye working in the office of Executive Magistrate. Complainant was informed that his brothers-in-law were arrested and so he rushed to Tahsil office. He was told by Accused to come on next day as remand warrants were already issued.

3. On 13th September, 1993 Complainant Shivram with his cousin Yadav had been to Tahsil office and submitted an application for bail for Madhukar and Ramesh. They were asked to wait till 04:00 pm as learned Magistrate was busy in a meeting. It is alleged that at 04:00 pm when Shivram met the Accused he demanded Rs.300/for releasing Madhukar and Ramesh on bail. Complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount. He however paid Rs.100/to Accused. Madhukar was released on bail on that day. So far as Ramesh was concerned it is further alleged that Accused insisted to pay remaining amount of Rs.200/and that time Complainant told him that he had no money and he would come with Rs.100/on next day.

4. On 14th September, 1993 Shivram approached A.C.B. office and lodged report alleging therein that Accused demanded money otherwise than for lawful purpose. On the basis of report trap was arranged. It was successful and currency notes one of Rs.50/, two of Rs.20/each and one of Rs.10/- denominations were found in possession of Accused. Pretrap Panchanama was prepared before the actual trap. After trap was successful posttrap Panchanama was drawn. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completing investigation papers were submitted to the competent authority for issuing sanction. Competent authority issued sanction to prosecute the Accused. Thereafter chargesheet was filed before the Special Court.

5. Charge came to be framed against the Accused vide Exhibit 13. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused submitted his written defence and also through cross-examination of witnesses raised the defence that he accepted the amount for the purpose of paying Advocate's fee for identifying surety, for fixing Court fee stamp to bail bonds and stamps for affidavit. Accused submitted that as per the instructions of his superior officer he was to assist the litigants approaching the office for official work and there was no motive to accept the amount as bribe as alleged by Complainant.

6. To substantiate alleged guilt of Accused prosecution examined in all 6 witnesses viz. PW1 Pandurang Ganpatrao Wakadkar was a shadow Panch, PW2 Shivram Complainant, PW3 Yadav cousin of Complainant, PW4 Investigating Officer Gopinath Patil, PW5 G.M. Madan sanctioning authority and PW6 Vinayak Padhye senior clerk in Tahsil office. Considering the evidence of Complainant, his cousin and Investigating Officer Trial Court came to the conclusion that demand and acceptance was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding sanction evidence of PW5 competent authority was relied upon and sanction was held as legal and valid. On the basis of evidence of above witnesses Trial Court held that charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt and in consequence th