The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, including demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the accused is considered innocent until proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - The appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption act ('P.C. act', for short), vide judgment and order dated 22nd September, 1998, passed by the Special Judge, Satara, in Special Case No.16 of 1992. The applicant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and to pay fne of Rs.2,000/-, for conviction under Section 7 of P.C. act, and, sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one year and fne of Rs.3,000/-, for conviction under Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the P.C. act. after the appeal was closed for judgment, it was listed for clarifcations on 29th april, and closed for orders.

2 During the pendency of appeal, the original appellant/accused had expired. His legal heirs preferred criminal application No.665 of 2019, for bringing them on record and seeking permission to pursue appeal. The said application was allowed vide order dated 2nd May, 2019.

3 The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working as Gav Kamgar Talathi of Sajja Khinghar, Taluka Mahabaleshwar. The complainant is resident of village Khinghar. His grand father died on 14th February, 1992. He had executed Will and bequeathed his property at village Damil, Taluka Poladpur, District Raigad, to his sons Nivrutti and Ramchandra, and, the property at Khinghar was bequeathed to his son Sitaram and grand sons Santosh and Sandeep. On 26th april, 1992, the complainant approached the accused at his offce and requested to enter their names. The accused told him that it was diffcult task and it cannot be done abruptly. The complainant was told to see him in his offce at Panchgani on 1st May, 1992. The complainant and his relative anand Bhilare visited offce of the accused at Panchgani on 1st May, 1992. The accused demanded Rs.1,000/- for the work. The complainant and anand Bhilare again approached the appellant at his residence at Bonderwadi and inquired about work. The accused asked the complainant about money. The complainant gave Rs.100/- to accused. On 10th May, 1992, the complainant again met the accused at his offce at Panchgani. The accused inquired about money. The complainant gave Rs.400/- to the accused. On 11th May, 1992, the complainant approached aCB at Satara. He lodged complaint against the accused. It was recorded. arrangements were made for trap of accused. Pre trap panchanama was recorded. The complainant and others went towards the house of the accused. The bribe amount was accepted by the accused. He was caught by the raiding party. On completing investigation, charge sheet was fled.

4 Charge was framed on 17th June, 1996. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Vide judgment and order dated 22nd September, 1998, the appellant was convicted.

5 Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case suffer from serious discrepancies. The demand and acceptance of bribe amount has not been proved beyond doubt. appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The alleged demand of bribe amount and its acceptance by the accused, is not supported by independent evidence. The demand dated 1st May, 1992, acceptance dated 7th May, 1992 and 10th May, 1992, is not supported by independent witness. The appellant had informed complainant that it is diffcult to grant application preferred by him and since the appellant was not granting request of complainant, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant was desperate to involve the appellant in the trap case. The evidence of complainant, his relative ananda Bhilare, panch witness P.W.2 and the investigating offcer is contradictory to each other. The accused had not invited the complainant st his residence. The complainant is apparently chasing the accused to part the amount. The complainant had allegedly parted an amount of Rs.100/- a