The central legal point established in the judgment is that a conclusive and definite demand for illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

1. Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 23.10.2000 in Special Anti Corruption Case 092/1992 delivered by the Judge, Special Court, Buldhana, by and under which, the appellant is convicted of offence punishable under sections 7, 13 (1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) allegedly demanded a bribe from the complainant one Ramkisan Laxman Dange to effect mutation of the name of the complainant and other legal heirs of late Laxman Ashru Dange in the agricultural land recorded in the name of late Laxman Ashru Dange in revenue record. The complainant has two brothers and three sisters. The agricultural land situated in village Mohotkhed, which is recorded in the name of the late father of the complainant, is managed by the complainant and his mother. The complainant and his brothers were desirous of selling the land to one Laxman Sathe and accordingly entered into an agreement of sale with the said Laxman Sathe. In order to give effect to the agreement, it was necessary to obtain updated 7/12 extract and the heirship certificate from the Patwari. The complainant approached the Patwari-accused on 25.04.1992 and was told by the accused that since the land is recorded in the name of the father of the complainant, it would take at least one year to effect changes in the revenue record. The accused demanded Rs.500/- from the complainant to expedite the work. The accused expressed inability to pay Rs.500/- and the demand was reduced to Rs.400/-. The complainant met the accused on 27.04.1992 and was informed by the accused that the documents are ready and asked the complainant whether he had brought Rs.400/-. The complainant answered in the negative and was then asked by the accused to come with the amount on the next day and take the document. The complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe and lodged report with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Buldhana (ACB). The ACB made elaborate preparation to trap the accused, panchas were summoned, necessary instructions were issued to the complainant and the panchas and the demonstration of the phenolphthalein powder and the sodium carbonate solution test was given.

3. The prosecution case is that the trap was successfully executed on 28.04.1992. The complainant and the shadow panch met the accused at the residence of the accused. The accused was sitting on a carpet, three persons were already there, who left after 10 to 15 minutes. The complainant asked the accused if the work is done and then the accused asked the complainant whether he has brought the form. The complainant said to the accused that the form is not brought assuming that the complainant will do the complete work. The accused filled the form and handed over the 7/12 extract to the complainant. The complainant received the 7/12 extract, kept the same in his pocket and was about to leave when the accused demanded the illegal gratification by a gesture. The complainant paid the amount, the accused accepted the same and kept the tainted currency note under his right hip. The complainant came out of the residence of the accused, gave the predetermined signal, the raiding party rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused. The right hand fingers of the accused were subjected to the phenolphthalein test which was positive. The currency notes were recovered from the carpet. The ACB completed the investigation, sought and obtained the statutory sanction and presented the chargesheet. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined five witnesses including the sanctioning authority (P.W.1), the complainant Ramkisan Dange (P.W.2), Head Constable Dhondu s/o Kisan Karutle who registered the offence (P.W.3), shadow panchp