The demand of illegal gratification is essential for constituting the offences under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 29th May 2003 passed by the Special Judge, Solapur, acquitting accused of offences punishable under Section 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act ), Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

2. On 13th February 2020 since nobody was present in Court representing respondent, the Court appointed Mr. Rohan Savant, an Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. Before I proceed with the case, I must express my appreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour put forth by Mr. Rohan Savant, learned Amicus Curiae, for it has been of immense value in rendering the judgment.

3. It is the case of prosecution that accused was working as Taluka Agricultural Officer attached to Madha office, District Solapur. Complainant (PW-3) Tanaji Sathe, was a licensed seller of saplings of pomegranates. The Agricultural Department issued coupons on the basis of which saplings were being sold and amount was paid by the Government. It is prosecution’s case that in the year 1998-99, accused sold saplings worth Rs.2,40,000/- and submitted his bills alongwith coupons to the Agricultural office at Madha. PW-3 requested accused to pay the bills. On 31st December 1999, when PW-3 made demand of bills, accused demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe and also told PW-3 that unless the amount is paid his bills will not be paid.

4. On 3rd January 2000, complainant (PW-3) met accused at 11.30 a.m. in the office of accused when accused is supposed to have been told complainant that if he paid Rs.10,000/-, half the bills will be settled. Accused also asked complainant how much amount was with him and complainant told him that he had only Rs.2,000/- on him. Accused said alright you pay that amount atleast and that amount was paid.

5. Accused then told PW-3 (complainant) to meet him on the next day in Kurduwadi office between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. PW-3 thereafter, telephoned A.C.B. office at Pune when he was told by the Investigating Officer – Suresh Deshpande (PW-6) that he would be coming at Indapur Rest house at 9.00 a.m. on 4th January 2000. On 4th January 2000, the Investigating Officer alongwith panchas and other staff came to Indapur Rest house where complaint given by PW-3 came to be recorded. Pre-trap panchnama was prepared and a sum of Rs.8,000/- was used as trap amount. When the raiding party went to the office of accused on 4th January 2000, accused was not found and the raid was called off.

6. Once again on 5th January 2000, trap was laid and when PW-3 with panch no.1, viz., Jayprakash Nimbalkar (PW-1) entered the office of accused, accused informed them to wait outside. Accused came out later and asked PW-3 as to whether he has brought the amount and when complainant (PW-3) asked accused whether the cheque was ready, accused told him the cheque was ready upon which time PW-3 removed Rs.8,000/- and paid to accused. Accused accepted the amount with his right hand and kept it in his pant pocket. Upon complainant giving the signal, the raiding party rushed and caught hands of accused. With the help of panch no.2, the amount was recovered from the pocket and there were traces of anthracene powder on the fingertips of both the hands of accused and also in his trouser pocket. Subsequently, post-trap panchnama was prepared and the complaint was registered. Investigation was also carried out by PW-6. The papers were sent to S.P., A.C.B., Pune, who forwarded the same to the concerned authority under whom accused was working and after receipt of sanction, charge-sheet was filed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence is of total denial. In answer to question no.43, it is the case of accused that complainant had supplied plants illegally and it was not possible for accused to prepare the bills and therefore, a false case has been filed to implicate him.

7. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal V/s.