The main legal point established in the judgment is that demand of illegal gratification is essential for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to establish guilt. The judgment also emphasized the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the need for reliable evidence to prove the case against the accused.

JUDGMENT

K R Shriram, J. - This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 5th August, 2006 passed by the Special Judge, Under (P.C. Act) Pune, acquitting the respondent (hereinafter referred as accused) of offence punishable under Section 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act) and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. It is prosecution's case that Sambhaji Namdeo Sakhare (P.W.1) complainant and his family members were served with notice dated 28/02/2003 informing them about compensation of Rs.1,19,290/- to be paid to them against acquisition of their property. The notice was issued by the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Maval Sub-Division. Out of this Rs.1,19,290/-, Rs.30,000/- was towards compensation of the building in the acquired land. On 07/08/2003 when P.W. 1 went to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer at Maval to collect the amount of compensation, accused demanded Rs.1,000/- for preparing and giving a cheque of Rs.30,000/- out of the total amount of compensation. As P.W. 1 did not have that much amount, it is alleged that accused asked him to bring that amount on the next date i.e., on 08/08/2003 on which date P.W. 1 can come and collect the cheque. Complainant P.W. 1 therefore approached A.C.B. and lodged complaint. After formalities for pre trap panchanama was completed, the raiding party went to the office of accused on 08/08/2003. At that time, P.W. 1 Complainant and P.W. 2 Shadow Panch Prabhakar Gaikwad met accused who told them to come back on 11/08/2003. On 11/08/2003 after again completing pre trap panchanama formalities P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 went and met accused who told them to come again on 12/08/2003. Again after completing pre trap panchanama formalities P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 went for the raid on 12/08/2003. On that day accused took signature of complainant on a receipt on which revenue stamp was affixed and accused informed P.W. 1 that the concerned officer was not available and therefore he should come again on 14/08/2003.

On 14/08/2003 again after completing pre trap panchanama formalities, raiding party went to the office of accused. When they reached the office of accused, complainant was told to come again at 4.00 p.m. after which P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 came out. At 4.00 p.m., complainant and panch entered the office of accused, cheque was given by accused to complainant and when complainant and panch started going out, accused went towards water cooler which was kept in the office. While drinking water, accused gestured by his hand to the complainant demanding money and then complainant handed over marked currency to accused who accepted those notes by his left hand and kept it in the left side pocket of his pant. Then complainant went out and gave agreed signal to the raiding party. A.C.B. officer, his staff and Panch No.2 entered office of accused. P.W. 2 shadow panch was sitting in the office pointing towards accused who was standing near a cupboard and told that accused has accepted the notes. They immediately caught hold of the hands of accused and took search of the cupboard. Second panch witness found in the cupboard not only the marked currency but also certain other amounts. The marked currency was checked under ultra violet lamp. Anthracene powder marks were found. Hands and clothes of accused were also checked under ultra violet lamp and bluish shining was found on the left hand and left side inner part of the left pocket of the pant of accused. Thereafter post trap panchanama was prepared, investigation commenced and after completion of investigation papers were sent to the sanctioning authority. After receiving sanction order, charge-sheet has been filed. Charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. After considering the evidence, Trial Court had come to a conclusion that accused required to be acquitted. I