The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of omissions and contradictions in witness statements, the absence of incriminating evidence, and the lack of examination of a crucial witness in establishing the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 25.4.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Nashik in Special Case No. 8/2004. The appellant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’) and was sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three months. He was also convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. He was sentenced for commission of that offence to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is that the complainant Suhas Jagtap was holding Power of Attorney for Shekhar Deshpande and Manisha Nikam. They had purchased a property at village Anjaneri, District Nashik and they wanted to enter their names in the revenue record. The appellant was working as Talathi in that region. It is the case of the complainant that the appellant demanded Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- and showed his willingness to accept Rs. 4,000/- for doing that work. The complainant did not want to pay that amount. He approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Nashik and lodged his complaint. The ACB officers called two panchas and conducted the procedure for laying a trap. On 17.3.2004 at about 12.30 p.m. the complainant went to a Juice Center and called the appellant there to pay him the bribe amount. After telephonic talk, the appellant went there. The complainant was accompanied by one of the panchas. ACB Officers were standing in the area. Before going to the Juice Center, anthracene powder was applied to the currency notes which were to be paid as bribe amount. They were kept in the pocket of the complainant. When the appellant came to the Juice Center, he demanded the amount. The complainant handed over those notes with his left hand. The appellant counted those notes with his both hands and kept them in his pocket. The complainant gave pre-arranged signal. The ACB officers entered the Juice Center. They caught the appellant. His both hands were checked under ultraviolet lamp. They were found to have traces of anthracene powder. His shirt pocket also showed presence of anthracene powder. The currency notes were found in his pocket. They were checked with the pre-trap panchnama. Their numbers tallied. The appellant was apprehended. The ACB officers went to Sarkarwada police station and lodged FIR about commission of offence by the appellant under the provisions of the PC Act. After that, the investigation was carried out. The case was tried before the Special Judge and as mentioned earlier at the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted for the offence.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-1 was the complainant, PW-2 was one of the panchas, PW-3 was the investigating officer and PW-4 was the Sanctioning Authority. After recording the evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The specific defence of the appellant was that the appellant had given Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant because the complainant had suffered accident and he needed money for his treatment. The complainant had not returned the amount. In the land transaction, the purchasers had not produced evidence that one of them was an agriculturist and, therefore, to pressurize the appellant to enter their names, the appellant was trapped. He was told that the complainant wanted to return the amount and on this false assurance he was trapped. The appellant had not demanded any bribe amount and had not accepted any bribe amount. Learned trial Judge did not accept this defence. He believed the evidence of the complainant as well as that of the pancha and the investigating officer and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as above.

4. Heard Shri Satyavrat Joshi, lear