The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the sanctioning authority must demonstrate proper application of mind before according sanction.

JUDGMENT

Surendra P. Tavade, J. - This appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the Judgment and order dated 18th November, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jalgaon in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 16 of 2014. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall referred to as the P.C. Act for short) and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and he also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, he directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellants is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years. He is sentenced to pay fine of Rupees Ten Thousand and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

The prosecution case can be summarized as under :

2. The complainant Krushna Mundhe is resident of village Rohini, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. He earns his livelihood from agricultural land. In the year, 2008, house under Gharkul scheme was sanctioned in name of his mother Sumanbai Mundhe. She received two cheques dated 24.11.2008 and 13.12.2008 for Rs. 5,000/- and 15,000/- respectively under the Gharkul scheme. Sumanbai was entitled for remaining amount of Rs. 22,000/- under the said scheme. One Ghuge had raised dispute that Sumanbai had two houses in village Rohini, therefore, she was not eligible for Gharkul scheme. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 22,000/- was blocked by the Panchayat Samiti Office. The said Ghuge withdrew his objecection. Hence the complainant met accused who was Gramsevak of village Rohini. The report of Gram Panchayat was required for payment of remaining amount of money under Gharukul scheme. Hence the complainant used to meet the accused for payment of subsidy. The accused disclosed to the complainant that he will have to pay Rs. 3,000/- so that he can issue cheque of remaining amount. The accused also told the complainant that unless amount of Rs. 3,000/- is paid, he will not issue cheque of remaining amount of Gharkul scheme. The complainant was not ready to pay bribe amount to the accused, hence he visited Anti Corruption Bureau office at Jalgaon on 5.5.2014. He narrated the facts to Police Inspector Anti Corruption Bureau. Accordingly, the complaint of complainant was reduced into writing. The complainant read his complaint and signed it. (Exh.17). Thereafter, Police Inspector Shinde (Investigating Officer) wrote letters to the Civil Surgeon, Government Hospial, Jalgaon and requested to depute two employees for the purpose of secret action ( Exh.16/ 26). Accordingly, Sunil Choudhary and Kuldeep Borse came to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau. The investigating officer introduced the said employees to the complainant and asked them to work as a panch witnesses. They agreed to it. The complainant narrated the contents of the complaint to panch witnesses. Accordingly the panch witnesses signed the complaint. The investigating officer asked complainant, panch witness to visit Anti Corruption Bureau Office at 6.00 a.m. on 06.05.2014.

3. On 06.05.2014, the complainant and the witnesses attended the office of Anti Corruption Bureau Jalgaon at about 6.00 a.m. The Investigating officer decided to verify the demand of the accused. He instructed complainant that he should go to the office of the accused along with panch witness No.1 Kuldeep Borse and should discuss with the accused about the work and if he demands bribe then he should seek time for the payment of the bribe amount. The investigating officer also instructed panch Borse (P.W. No.1) that he should accompanied the complainant and should keep watch on the talks between the complainant and the accused. Panch No.2 was instructed to accompanied raiding party. It was also instructed to the complainant and panch witness Borse that vo