The main legal point established is the necessity of proving the demand of illegal gratification in bribery cases, as well as considering the history and credibility of the complainant in false implication of government servants.

JUDGMENT

A S Gadkari, J. - The Appellant-State has questioned correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 21st May 2010 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Special (ACB) Case No. 4 of 2005, acquitting the original accused No.1, i.e. present respondent, from the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the P.C. Act"). The Appellant-State has not questioned the acquittal of original accused No.2 Dattatray S. Gaikwad in the present case.

2. Heard Mr.Hulke, learned A.P.P. for the appellant-State. Despite service, none appears for the respondent.

Perused the entire record.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that, the respondent was working as Inspector in Social Welfare Department, Zilla Parishad, Solapur and the original accused No.2 was serving as peon in the said Department. Mr.Mahendra Aurangabadkar (PW-1), complainant, a stamp vendor was conducting his business in the precincts of the Zilla Parishad Building Solapur. The complainant (PW-2) was a person belonging to Hindu Brahman Caste and was married with Smt.Chaya Pundlik Londhe, who was belonging to Hindu Mang Caste. Their marriage took place on 3rd May 1993. As the said marriage was an inter-caste marriage, the complainant had received grant of Rs.5,500/- from the Government, in or around December 1993. That in the year 1995, the Government of Maharashtra declared additional grant of Rs.9,500/- to the couple, who had performed inter-caste marriage. It was alleged that, in furtherance of the said Government Notification the complainant (PW-1) submitted application to the Office of the respondent i.e. the Social Welfare Department, Zilla Parishad, Solapur for getting additional grant and/or difference in the Government grant. It is further alleged that, in connection with the additional grant, the complainant met respondent in his office, who demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/- for processing his application. As the complainant PW-1 was not interested in paying illegal gratification to the respondent, he lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Solapur.

4. The Investigating Agency after complying with the necessary legal formalities, laid a trap on 31st January 2004. PW-2, namely, Sayabana Basappa Bere was a 'Panch Witness', who accompanied the complainant at the time of trap. It is alleged that, the respondent accepted the bribe amount from the complainant and gave it to the original accused No.2, who consequently again handed over it back to the respondent. Respondent thereafter kept it in the pocket of his trouser. After receipt of predetermined signal, the Investigating Officer (PW-4) along with other Officers of Anti Corruption Bureau accosted the respondent and the original accused No.2. The First Information Report came to be lodged with the Sadar Bazar Police Station bearing Crime No. 3052 of 2004 under Section 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted Chargesheet against the respondent and the original accused No.2 in the Special Court.

5. The Trial Court framed 'Charge' below Exhibit-4. The said Charge was read over and explained to the respondent and the original accused No.2, to which they denied and claimed to be tried.

The defence of the respondent and the original accused No.2 was of total denial. It was the further defence of the respondent that, he was very well acquainted with the complainant, as the complainant was doing business of 'Stamp Vendor' in the premises of the Zilla Parishad, Solapur. That the office of the respondent was also situated in the same premises from where the complainant used to do his business as 'Stamp Vendor'. It was the habit of the complainant to file complaints against public servants with the Anti Corruption Bureau. That, on an earlier occasion a false complaint was filed against the then Residential Tahsildar, Mr