Point of Law: Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted. It is therefore, essential that every State should put in place a procedural mechanism, which would ensure that the cause of justice is served, which would simultaneously ensure the safeguard of interest of those who are innocent. In furtherance of the above purpose, it is considered essential to direct the Home Department of every State, to examine all orders of acquittal and to record reasons for the failure of each prosecution case

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Shriram, J.

This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Thane, acquitting respondent of offences punishable under Sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

2. The prosecution's case in brief is that one Riyaz Ahmed Khan resident of Mumbra who is PW-1-complainant and carries on business at Kalwa, had applied for license of revolver/pistol on 2.9.2000. The application was sent to the office of Police Commissioner which ultimately came to Mumbra Police station for preliminary inquiry. The application was entrusted to accused for making inquiry. It is alleged that accused had recorded statement of PW-1 complainant and on the next date he called PW-1 to his office at Mumbra police station and demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- for sending favourable report. PW-1 was told by accused that if this amount is not paid, the work could not be done and accused would send a report recommending refusal to issue license.

3. It is alleged that on 22.2.2001 accused called PW-1 Riyaz Khan to his office and informed him that his application for license was refused and further told him had he given amount of Rs.15,000/- that he had demanded, his application would have been allowed. Accused advised PW-1 to file an appeal in Mantralaya and also to file fresh application, and he would look into it. Therefore, in April-2001, PW-1 Riyaz Khan filed a fresh application with Police Commissioner Thane. Thereafter for 10 days before filing of the FIR, on 16.5.2001 accused called PW-1 informing him that his application had come to him for inquiry and therefore, PW-1 went to accused and his statement was recorded by some constable and copies of documents were taken and PW-1 was allowed to go back. Two days later, accused once again called PW-1 to Mumbra police station and after some discussion told PW-1 that an amount of Rs.8000/- has to be paid which has to be handed over to his superiors and unless that is done, accused will not send a favourable report. Despite PW-1's request, accused refused to reduce the amount.

4. On 13.5.2001 at about 8.00 p.m. accused went to the office of PW-1 at Kalwa and inquired about payment of Rs.8000/- and when PW-1 informed accused that he has not been able to arrange amount of Rs.8000/-, accused asked him to meet him at his office on 16.5.2001 at 5.00 p.m. with Rs.8000/-. Accused also assured PW-1 that once the amount is paid, he would send a favourable report.

5. Realizing that unless the amount is paid, his application will not be considered, PW-1 decided to approach the office of Anti Corruption Bureau at Thane and lodged complaint (Exh.12) on 16.5.2001. Thereafter, Anti Corruption Bureau decided to lay a trap and pre trap formalities were completed.

6. On 16.5.2001 PW-1 and panch witness Dilip Murlidhar Adangale (PW-2) entered the office of accused while the raiding party was waiting outside scattered, and PW-1 once again requested accused to reduce the amount. Accused refused and then PW-1 took out amount of Rs.8000/- from his chest pocket and handed it over to accused. Accused accepted the amount with his right hand and counted the notes which were 16 of Rs.500/-. Then accused told PW-1 that he may leave. At which time, PW-1 went out and gave signal to the raiding party who came and caught accused red handed with the amount of Rs.8000/- which was in his hand. PW-1 is stated to have been lingering in the office of accused to keep a watch on him.

7. Thereafter the post trap panchanama was prepared and (PW-4)-Padmakar Juikar lodged a formal FIR (Exh.25). Before that supplementary statement of PW-1 was also recorded. Investigations were made and papers were submitted to the sanctioning authority and after getting sanction, accused was charge-sheeted for the above referred offences.

8. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to