JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra impugning an order and judgment dated 20.7.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Solapur acquitting respondent of charges under Section 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), read with section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. On 6.1.2020 when the matter was called out, as respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) was unrepresented, this court appointed Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy as an Amicus Curiae. Of course, subsequently Mr. Subodh Pathak appeared for accused. Before I proceed with the case, I must express my appreciation for the distinguished assistance rendered by Mr. Jejeebhoy, learned amicus curiae.

3. Heard the counsel and also perused the record & proceedings, the evidence as well as the impugned judgment.

4. The prosecution's story in brief:

(a) Accused was working as a Police Head Constable at Solapur, Taluka Police station, Solapur Rural, Dist. Solapur at the relevant time. On 18.2.1997 at about 2.00 p.m. complainant Dhanaji H. Rathod (PW-3) met accused at his residential quarter in Keshav Nagar at which time accused told complainant, i.e., PW-3 that PW-3 was involved in a prohibition case under section 66-B of the Bombay Prohibition Act under Taluka Police Station Jurisdiction and accused was investigating that case and PW-3 was going to be arrested and probably externed and to show favour demanded a sum of Rs. 1500/- as bribe. PW-3 claims to have fallen at the feet of accused saying that no such action be taken against him, at which time accused demanded Rs. 1500/- as bribe. PW-3 pleaded his inability to give such a large amount because he was unemployed, has given up all his illicit liquor business and now working only as a part time labour.

(b) PW-3 bargained and brought down the amount to Rs. 1000/- and accused informed PW-3 to bring the amount on 19.2.1997 at about 10.00 to 10.30 a.m. in Suresh Cycle Mart near S.T. bus stand. When PW-3 went to Keshav Nagar, i.e., to the resident of accused, he was taken on motor cycle by brother-in-law of PW-3 one Dhanaji Pawar, who has not been examined. Dhanaji Pawar, after PW-3 met accused, dropped PW-3 at about 2.30 p.m. near one Panjarapol chowk. PW-3 thought over the matter and felt that accused will not let him live in peace and decided to complain to Anti Corruption Bureau. PW-3 thereafter went over to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, met API Ghuge (PW-8) who is the Investigating officer and narrated his complaint to PW-8. PW-8 patiently heard PW-3 and noted down the complaint in his handwriting but in the words of PW-3. Simultaneously, PW-8 addressed a letter to M.S.E.B. to depute two persons as panch witnesses and those persons reached office of A.C.B. at 5.30 p.m. After narrating the facts and completing the preliminaries, a pre trap panchanama was prepared by PW-8. After pre trap panchanama was prepared, complainant and panch witness were directed by PW-8 to report again in the office of A.C.B. at 6.00 a.m. on 19.2.1997. After detailed instructions were given, complainant, the panch witnesses, PW-8 who is the Investigation officer (I.O.) and Deputy Superintendent of Police one Mr. Thorat and few other constables being the raiding party went to trap accused. I have to note that apart from PW-1 who was a panch witness, PW-3 who is complainant and PW-8 the Investigating officer, none of the others who were part of the raiding party have been examined by prosecution. Not summoning Mr. Thorat to testify, is a very material lapse because as the Deputy Superintendent of Police he could have been the best witness. I am saying this because the case of accused, which we will deal with later, is PW-8, the I.O. was hand in glove with PW-3 and PW-6 to trap accused with the false case of corruption.

(c) The raiding party reached the meeting point at 10.00 a.m. PW-1 and PW-3 went to Suresh Cycle Mart and the others w