The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the accused's mens rea at the time of inducing the victims to part with property, and the principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court when dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Shriram, J.

This is an appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code impugning the judgment dated 21-3-1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by which the accused was acquitted of a charge under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The appeal that was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge was to challenge an order of conviction against accused no.1. There were three accused and accused nos.2 and 3 were acquitted by the Trial Court.

3. In a nutshell, it is the case of complainant that accused no.1 (hereinafter referred to as accused) was a congress party worker based in Pune and accused used to promise jobs in Government offices for payment of a fee. The prosecution says accused made such promises to many others, some of whom are P.-W.-2 to P.W.-11, took money from them with a promise of Government or bank job, but never got them any job or returned the money. Complainant- Nitin Bhosale has stated that he did not have a permanent employment and he was in search of a job. In June 1993, he came to know through one Ms Saitwadkar that accused was a congress party worker who had political contacts at high levels and helps people to get Government job for payment of some money. Accordingly, complainant in June 1993 went to meet accused at her residence. He was accompanied by Ms Saitwadkar and another person Balu, i.e., Vijay Phakatkar (P.W.-2). Accused, it seems, informed the trio that she has contacts in Delhi and Mumbai with Ministry and that she was also going to open a Bank in Pune and some people are going to be employed. It seems, accused also informed that she has already given jobs to many people and if it is not possible to get jobs in the Government department or PCMC (Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation), she would get them job from Delhi quota (what it means is not explained). It seems complainant was told by accused that for a Government job as a clerk the cost will be Rs.7000/- and for a Government job as peon, it will be Rs.2000/-. It seems accused also assured, if the amount was paid within 2 or 3 days, he will get the employment immediately.

4. Thereafter, on 5-7-1993, complainant is supposed to have gone and met accused again and gave an application (Exhibit 37) to accused for a job as clerk for himself and for the job as a peon for his younger brother Prashant Bhosale. Prashant Bhosale is not a witness. According to complainant, the amount that was payable to accused was Rs.9000/- and he paid accused Rs.2000/- on that day with a promise to pay the balance of Rs.7000/- in few days. It is not clear whether the balance Rs.7000/- was paid to accused. Exhibit 36, which is the job application, is rather strange in as much as the application is signed by complainant and addressed to accused. The application is in Marathi language, in which, it is stated that applicant wants a job as clerk and his younger brother be given a job as peon. Complainant had studied up to F. Y. B.Com and his younger brother was 10th fail and that complainant requested accused to get him a government job (sarkari naukri) as clerk and his younger brother to be given a job as peon and assured that both would work very honestly. The curious part of this is that, in the application he says he will work honestly, but the method of getting a Government job is far from being honest.

5. The prosecution has led evidence of P.W.-2, who is a friend of the complainant. P.W.-2 had accompanied complainant during the first visit of complainant to the house of accused. P.W.-2 is supposed to have later gone and have given a sum of Rs.2000/- for getting a job as peon. Likewise, P.W.-3 is another job applicant, who has given Rs.2000/- for getting a job as peon. P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are supposed to have given Rs.15,000/- each for getting a job in a bank, which accused was starting. P.W.-6 is the father and husband respectively of two applicants, who has given Rs.3000/- + Rs.3000/- = Rs.6000/- for getting a job as ward boy f