The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to establish the guilt of the accused.

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

1. Appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellant is also convicted for offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in Special Case No. 10 of 1992 by Special Judge, Pune vide Judgment and Order dated 09/03/1995. Hence, this appeal.

2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:

3. It is the case of prosecution that on 02/04/1992, one Palraj Naidu approached office of Anti Corruption Bureau at Pune and filed a report alleging therein that he is residing in a chawl owned by Rama Nama Pangre. He pays the rent of Rs. 300/-. In the same room, he used to conduct a small business where he sells cigarettes, bidee, bread and butter, tobacco, tea powder, biscuits etc, since 1991. That the area is thickly populated. He does good business. He further reported that on 01/04/1992, he along with Laxman Pangre had travelled by S.T. bus to Pune. Shri. Pangre had some work in the bank. They returned to Shindewadi at about 4.00 p.m. There, after alighting from the S.T. bus, one police constable in civil dress had stopped him. He asked the complainant whether he is the same person who runs a grocery shop near Kelkar company. Complainant had answered in the affirmative. The said police person had asked him to accompany him to the police station. Pangre had gone to his own house. Police had asked him as to what he sells in the grocery shop. Complainant had informed him that he sells grocery. He had specifically informed police personnel that he does not sell liquor in the said shop. He had admitted that he does not have a licence. At that stage, police personnel had threatened him that he would file a case against him every day and the minimum fine that he would have to pay is Rs. 100/-. Thereafter, police personnel had told him that if he wants to save himself from the said harassment, he should pay him Rs. 1000/-. The amount was negotiated and it was agreed that original complainant would pay Rs. 800/- to him. Thereafter, complainant had asked the police personnel his name and he was informed that the name of the police personnel was Shaikh. That the police personnel had told him to pay the amount by the next day evening. Complainant was slapped by the police personnel. It appears that original complainant was annoyed with the said act of police and therefore had approached Anti Corruption Bureau office. He had specifically reported to the A.C.B. that he was not knowing the police person prior to 01/04/1992. That he has no enmity with him and neither there was any transaction between them.

4. Anti Corruption Bureau had decided to take report to its logical end and therefore two public servants were summoned by the A.C.B. for conducting raid. On 02/04/1992, raiding party had been to Shindewadi police station. One Anil Pataskar was instructed to act as shadow witness. That the shadow witness had accompanied original complainant to the police station. There was a demand by the police person. The amount was parted with as per instructions. Soon thereafter, raiding party had apprehended the accused. The A.C.B. had conducted the pre-trap panchanama in accordance with law and thereafter Dy. S.P. of A.C.B. (P.W. 5) had lodged a report to the police station. Crime No. 30 of 1992 was registered against the accused for offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was registered as Special Case No. 10 of 1992. Prosecution examined 6 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

5. P.W. 1 happens to be original complainant to whom the accused had allegedly demanded Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification. That P.W. 1 has de