The judgment emphasized the necessity of demand and the voluntary acceptance of the bribe, highlighting the suspicious features of the prosecution case. The court found serious doubts about the truth of the prosecution case and acquitted the appellant, setting aside the judgment and order of conviction.

Abhay M. Thipsay, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the Special Judge (appointed under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act) for Greater Mumbai, convicting the appellant of offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act) and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,500/- on each of the said two counts.

2. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court, can be best taken from Form No. 5E of the Printed Prescribed Proforma of the police report (Final Report Form) under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In brief, it be stated thus:-

Hemant Bhagwat, (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') at the material time, was doing his Garment business under the name and style of "Four Seasons Garments" at Unit No. IV, Star Delta Industrial Estate, Saki Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. He had no permits or licences required for the said business. That, in the third week of January 2004 at about 2.00 p.m. the appellant went to the Company of the complainant and introduced himself as an Officer in the Encroachment Department, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, "L" ward, Kurla (West). The appellant asked the complainant whether the complainant had taken permission of the Municipal Corporation for constructing the loft which was in the premises of the complainant's company. The complainant said that he had not taken any such permission whereupon the appellant gave his mobile telephone number to the complainant and asked him to meet the appellant. That, on 5th February 2007, the appellant contacted the complainant on mobile telephone and informed him that he would be coming to meet the complainant in his Company in the evening. Accordingly, the appellant went to the Company of the complainant in the evening and told the complainant that the loft in the Company premises was illegal, and that it would be demolished. The appellant discussed the matter with the complainant and demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 60,000/- as a consideration for not taking the action of demolition of the said loft. The complainant expressed his inability to pay that much amount whereupon the appellant asked the complainant to consider about the quantum of the illegal gratification and meet him in his office on the next day. The complainant had no desire to pay any illegal gratification or bribe to the appellant, and as such, he reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 6th February 2007 by giving a complaint in writing. This complaint was verified in the presence of two panchas and in the verification, it became clear that the appellant had demanded an amount of Rs. 45,000/- as and by way of bribe from the complainant and had agreed to accept an amount of Rs. 15,000/- therefrom on 7th February 2007; and as such a crime vide C.R. No. 12/07 was registered. On 7th February 2007 at about 8.35 p.m. the appellant was apprehended red-handed after he had accepted the tainted amount near the counter of a store near Mahim Railway Station. Traces of Anthracin powder, which was used for laying the trap, were noticed on the fingers and the pant pocket of the appellant. Further investigation into the matter was carried out and record of the conversation between the complainant and the accused which had been recorded earlier, was forwarded to the FSL at Kalina. On receipt of the report about the identity of the voices in question, a charge-sheet alleging commission of the aforesaid offences was filed against the appellant who, as aforesaid, was tried, convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge.

3. The prosecution examined four witnesses during the trial. The first one is the complainant himself and the second is Ajay Sarolkar, a panch. The third witness Jayraj Phatak is the person who had accorded sanction to prosecute the a