JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dtd. 23/2/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar whereby discharge application of the petitioner was rejected.

3. In nutshell, the prosecution case is as under :

(a) According to complainant, Appeal Nos. 32 of 2016, 33 of 2016, 34 of 2016 and 35 of 2016 regarding mutation entries of complainant's father's properties were pending before the petitioner, who was at the relevant time was Sub- Divisional Officer, Palghar. Prosecution alleges that the petitioner and other accused, namely, Satish Maniwade, Nayab Tahsildar of Sub Divisional Office, Palghar demanded Rs.50.00 lakhs to pass the orders in favour of the complainant. Since complainant was averse to pay the bribe, he approached the office of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 26 th August, 2016 and lodged the complaint.

(b) Prosecution next contends that the office of ACB with the help of complainant set up first trap on 29 th August, 2016. However, since verification of the demand could not be done, trap was postponed. Thereafter, again on 20/9/2016, the second trap was arranged when despite the complainant met petition