The main legal point established is the requirement for clear and corroborated evidence to establish bribery allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and order dated 25 th July, 2005 passed by the Special Judge, Sindhudurg - Oros in Special Case No. 6 of 2004 acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 7-A r/w Sec. 12 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short " PC Act").

2. The prosecution case is as follows :-

The complainant is the resident of Village Usap. On 22/5/2003, he approached office of Anti Corruption Bureau (for short "ACB") at Kudal and lodged the complaint alleging that the accused No.1 had demanded bribe. The complainant is dealing in fire-wood and was transporting it in a tempo belonging to his sister. On 21 st April, 2003, the accused No.1 - Range Forest Officer seized tempo while it was transporting fire-wood to Goa, on the ground that there was no permit for transporting forest produce. The driver of complainant gave the said information to him. The complainant met accused No.1 and requested for releasing the vehicle. He was informed that the case has been filed in respect of the vehicle and hence it could not be released for 4 days. The complainant again met the accused and at that time the accused No.1 demanded the amount of Rs.20,000.00 for releasing the vehicle. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount. Accused No.1 told him that the vehicle would not be released. Thereafter, the complainant met accused No.1 and again requested him to release the vehicle. The accused repeated his demand of Rs.20,000.00 for releasing the vehicle. The amount was then negotiated and reduced to Rs.10,000.00. He was called on 19/5/2003 along with his sister. PW-2 met accused No.2 along with his sister and persons who would be sureties. On payment of fine of Rs.2,100.00 and execution of necessary documents the vehicle was released. The accused No.1 demanded the bribe amount of Rs.10,000.00.- The complainant told him that he could not arrange the amount. He was told to bring the amount on 23/5/2003 at 7.30 a.m. He was also told that he should be accompanied by accused No.2. He was threatened that in case the amount is not paid, his vehicle would be again attached and confiscated. Hence, the complainant approached ACB and lodged the complaint. It was decided to lay trap. Panchas were called. Instructions were given to them. Trap was arranged.

Complainant and panch witnesses approached accused No.1. The other members of raiding party were waiting at a distance. Accused No.2 came to the office of accused No.1 They went to the residence of accused No.1. The amount was kept on the table on instructions of accused No.1. It was counted by accused No.1 and given to accused No.2 The complainant gave signal to raiding party. Both the accused were arrested. Amount was recovered. Their hands were examined under ultra violet rays. Traces of anthracene powder were noticed. Investigation proceeded. Charge-sheet was filed.

3. Charge was framed under Ss. 7, 7A r/w Sec. 12 of PC Act, 1988 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of PC Act on 16/2/2005.

4. The prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-1 - Ashfaq Raut is the panch witness. PW-2 Sagar Gawas is the complainant. PW-3 Madhukar Sonkusare is the Deputy Secretary, Forest Department and sanctioning authority. PW-4 Surash Warang is the Investigating Officer.

5. The statements of accused were recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. Apart from explanation in answer to the questions put to them under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused filed written say as part of their explanation under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. and their defence.

6. The learned Special Judge scrutinized the evidence and for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment, both the accused were acquitted vide judgment and order dated 25 th July, 2005.

7. PW-1 has acted as panch witness. He was instructed to accompany complainant. He stated that on receipt of the complaint of PW-2, he was summoned by ACB. The grievance of