The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, regarding abetment of offences punishable under the Act.

JUDGMENT

SURENDRA PANDHARINATH TAVADE,J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for both the parties, heard finally at admission stage.

2. The revision applicant is challenging the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Nilanga, District Latur below Exh. 21 in Special Case (ACB) No. 01 of 2019, by which an application filed by the present applicant for his discharge was rejected.

3. The facts giving rise to the present revision summarized as under :

The applicant was elected as a member of village panchyat, Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga, District Latur in general election held and thereafter he was elected as Up-Sarpanch of village Aurad Shajani. Fulchand Madhavrao Bondge is the employee of the village panchyat. He had given an application to village panchayat, seeking no objection certificate for opening Permit Room and Beer Bar. In view of the said application, the village panchyat had passed a resolution on 14.08.2018 resolving that the permission be granted to said Fulchand for starting Permit Room and Beer Bar. It is further contended that on 21.08.2018, the Head Master of Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary School, submitted an application and objected for grant of 'No Objection ' to the Permit Room and Beer Bar, as said school is situated within 100 to 125 feet away from the said Permit Room and Beer Bar. On the basis of the said application, the village panchyat conveyed a meeting and the earlier resolution dated 14.08.2018 was cancelled. The applicant being Social Worker has also opposed for granting of NOC for opening the Beer Bar and Permit Room to Bondge.

4. The son of Fulchand namely Bhagwat Bondge filed a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau (for short 'ACB '), Latur wherein, he alleged that the applicant and Gramsevak original (A-1) in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2019 demanded money from him for granting no objection certificate for starting Permit Room and Beer Bar. On the basis of said complaint the officer of ACB, verified the information and laid a trap on 29.11.2018. The complainant paid Rs. 60,000/- to Gramsevak, original (A-1). Accordingly, the Gramsevak was trapped while accepting bribe of Rs. 60,000/-. It is contended that in the process of verification of the information given by the informant, the Investigating Officer had intercepted the conversation between the informant and the present applicant, as well as the informant and the Gramsevak. On the basis of said conversation, it was alleged that the applicant has aided and abetted the informant to pay the bribe to the Gramsevak for issuance of no objection certificate, hence the applicant came to be arrested. On completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the applicant along with Gramsevak.

5. It is contended that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant. It is contended that the applicant was not in favour of issuing no objection certificate for the said Permit room and Beer Bar of Bondge (the father of informant). The applicant never abeted the informant and never demanded money for granting NOC as alleged in the FIR. It is contended that on bare reading of the transcription prepared in pursuance of alleged voice recording, does not disclose any offence against the applicant. It is contended that the applicant has falsely implicated in the crime. It is contended that the applicant was working as Up-sarpanch of village . Up-sarpahch is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC "). It is contended that the applicant has no concern with the issuance of no objection certificate, therefore, there is no question of demand of money from the informant for issuance of no objection certificate. It is contended that the role attributed to the applicant does not fall under the provisions of Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act "). It is cont