The prosecution must establish the 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the bribe amount to constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

JUDGEMENT :

1. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the conviction recorded under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (‘ PC Act of 1947’ for short) and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month and under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and sentencing imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days in Special Case No. 01 of 1989 by learned Special Judge, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 29th August, 1998.

2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that, the complainant, namely, Karbhari Madhav Aher and his younger brother Bhausaheb Madhav Aher are the resident of village Erandgaon-Budruk, Tahasil- Yeola, District- Nashik. According to complainant, on 07/03/1988 his said younger brother had gone to Kopargaon to attend marriage ceremony. On the same day, at about 6:00 to 6:30 p.m., PSI Avhad (appellant) and other police staf carried out prohibition raid in the village. They also visited the complainant’s house and asked whereabouts of the complainant’s younger brother. They also told that his brother had fed away after throwing the liquor and further asked to bring him to the police station on the next day.

3. According to complainant, on 09/03/1988, his younger brother met him when he narrated the incident of prohibition raid dated 07/03/1988. The complainant’s younger brother told him that he had been to Kopargaon. In the afternoon, the complainant visited Police Station, Yeola and met PSI Avhad. PSI Avhad again asked the complainant to bring his brother and also Rs.500/- for bail along with surety on the next day. The complainant pleaded that the amount of Rs.500/- was exorbitant and therefore, said PSI Avhad reduced the said amount to Rs.350/- and accordingly asked him to come along with his brother on 11/03/1988 and get his brother released on bail.

4. The complainant on 10/03/1988 approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau and complained about the demand made by PSI Avhad. He also informed that neither he had fnancial transaction with PSI Avhad nor any personal enmity.

5. On the basis of said complaint, Dy.S.P. Anti Corruption Bureau, Nashik summoned two panch witnesses and after briefing them as to the anti corruption raid to be carried out visited the office of PSI Avhad on 11/03/1988. A pretrap panchanama was also prepared in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau.

6. Later on, the complainant, his brother and one shadow panch witness, namely, Sahebrao Giridhar Patil were asked to proceed police station, Yeola. Dy.S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau, Nashik along with other staff members also proceeded towards the police station on a vehicle. At about 11:15 a.m. the complainant gave a predetermined signal and therefore, Dy. S.P. and other staf members of the raid party along with another panch witness entered into the room of Police Station Officer. The complainant informed that Police Havildar Pawar had accepted the monies. An amount of Rs.350/- was recovered from his possession. The traces of anthracin powder were also found in his right hand and on the right pocket of his payjama. Meantime, PSI Avhad also came there. A detailed panchanama was prepared on the spot.

7. This led to initiation of the prosecution of the appellant and co-accused Police Havildar Pawar under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(i)(d) of the PC Act, 1947 and Sections 161 and 165-A of the IPC. The prosecution examined their witnesses to prove the charges framed again both the accused.

8. By judgment dated 29th August, 1998 the learned Special Judge found appellant to be guilty of the charges under section 5(2) read with section 5(i)(b) of the PC Act of 1947 and section 161 of the IPC. It is against this conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred by