JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Facts:

Faced with the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), the appellant suffered conviction. The Sessions Court, Nashik, in Special Case No.11 of 2012, through its judgment dated 18th December 2015, sentenced the applicant, among other things, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. That was under Section 7 of P.C. Act. Similarly, under Section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of P.C. Act, the appellant was handed down an identical sentence. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. We may touch upon the facts briefly. The informant is an Architect. In 2010 he undertook the work of a private limited company, said to be a multi-national establishment. The Architect's duty was to prepare plans, submit them to the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), Nashik, for approval and, thereafter, to the Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Nashik.

3. From the pleadings I gather when the plans were submitted for the appellant's approval, he did nothing for two months. During that period the informant met the appellant two or three times. Eventually, he received a call from one Chavan, whose name and identity are disputed, though. Chavan wanted the architect to go and meet the appellant on 11th August 2010. Ostensibly, Chavan is an employee in the appellant's department. As required, the architect met the appellant on that day; he was informed that the work was 'big' and that he should pay Rs.10,000/-. Of course, the architect, then, narrates the whole process of how he was compelled to meet the demand.

4. Bribe demanded, the architect first met the company's manager, but he refused to comply with that demand. He told the architect that he undertook to get the permission and it was his look out. Then, on 11th August 2010, the architect went to the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nashik, to complain. The next day, he again went to the ACB office and familiarized himself with the trap procedure. As described in the pre-trap panchnama, the architect received instructions and went to the appellant on the next date- 12th August 2010-accompanied by one of the two panch witnesses. Then after a successful trap, the ACB authorities again drew post-trap panchnama. That resulted in the appellant's arrest.

5. Eventually, the prosecution charged the appellant with the offences under the PC Act, examined the informant as PW1, one of the panch witnesses as PW2, the sanctioning authority as PW3, and the investigation officer as PW4, besides marking about 59 exhibits.

6. Convicted and sentenced, the appellant has filed this appeal.

Submissions:

Appellant:

7. Shri Girish Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the appellant, has advanced elaborate arguments. He has focused on five areas of what he terms prosecution's failure to bring home the appellant's guilt. According to him though the appellant was said to have demanded the illegal gratification on 11th August 2010, there was no charge about that alleged demand. The entire allegation and even the charge framed only concern the developments on 12th August 2010, when the trap was laid. Thus, an essential element of demand stands omitted from the trial. Therefore, the punishment under Section 7 of the PC Act, according to him, cannot be sustained.

8. After taking me through the complaint, the charge, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, besides the material portions of the judgment impugned, Shri Kulkarni has stressed that there are glaring and fatal contradictions in the complaint, the charge, and the evidence. Therefore, he contends that the benefit of doubt ought to have gone to the appellant.

9. To illustrate the prosecution's omissions, Shri Kulkarni has stressed that from the stage of the initial complaint to that of trial before the court, there have been vast improvements. And some of the assertions by the witnesses are self-contrad