The judgment underscores the necessity of proving the demand for a bribe and the importance of a thorough and valid investigation, including the proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No.23/2001, whereby the present appellant/accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act for short). He is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for six months and to pay fine of Rs.600/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for fifteen days for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. He is further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for one year and to pay fine of Rs.600/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for fifteen days for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act. Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The story of the prosecution in short is as below:

The present appellant/accused was working as a Senior Clerk in the office of Sub-Regional Provident Fund, CIDCO, Aurangabad. The Complainant namely Dharamchand Meher wanted advance of Rs.40,000/- from his Provident Fund account and for that purpose, he met the appellant on 18.06.2001. It is alleged that this appellant demanded Rs.1500/- for doing the work of getting the advance sanctioned. The Complainant therefore approached the office of ACB, Aurangabad and lodged a complaint. On receipt of the complaint, ACB decided to lay a trap on the same day. It is alleged that the trap was successful and appellant was found having accepted amount of bribe. The prosecution is launched after investigating and obtaining a sanction.

3. The defence of the appellant is that he had no concern with the work of the Complainant. He did not demand any amount towards bribe. At the time of alleged incident, the Complainant thrusted something in the pocket of appellant, when the appellant took out the said thing from the pocket of his pant, he found that it was money and thus his fingers came in contact with anthracene powder.

4. The prosecution in its support examined four witnesses. The first witness is Complainant namely Dharamchand Phulchand Meher. In his deposition, he stated that he was serving as a clerk in agricultural department in the office of Badnapur Section of Ramnagar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Jalna. From his salary, every month amount is credited to his Public Provident Fund (PPF) Account bearing No.MH 36194167. He required a loan/advance from G.P.F. for construction of a house and therefore he made an application in form no.31 on 31.05.2001 for advance Rs.40,000/- and gave it to the appellant. He stated that it is for this work, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.1500/-. The Complainant met the appellant again on 18.06.2001 on that day again there was a demand of bribe, this witness lodged a report with Shri. Thorat, P.I., ACB, Aurangabad against the appellant. On lodging of the complaint, ACB decided to lay a trap by following usual procedure. Panchas were called, procedure was explained to them and a trap was arranged. At 03:55 pm., Complainant with one of the panchas entered the office, where appellant was sitting in his chair. Complainant shown him form no. 31 and requested him to grant advance at the earliest. The appellant thereupon asked as to whether the Complainant has brought money? Complainant said ‘yes’ and told that he has brought only Rs.1200/-. Appellant told Complainant to stay out of the office and he would come there. Complainant with panch came out of the office and stood near one tea stall. After sometime, appellant came out of the office. Appellant, Complainant and panch had a tea at a tea stall. Complainant paid the bill for tea and requested appellant to attend his work and collect Rs.1200/-. From there, appellant went towards north side and while going towards one corner, this witness/Complainant took out the tainted notes and held the same before the appellant. It is stated that the appellant collected notes with his le