The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the importance of a valid sanction for prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and order of conviction passed in Special Case No. 127 of 2006 by the Special Judge, Dhule, original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred their respective appeals by taking aid of Section 374 of Cr. P.C.

2. The facts giving rise to these two appeals in brief are as under :

2(a) Appellant, Sanjay Ishwarlal Varude (original accused No.1) was serving as a Police Constable and attached to Dondaicha Police Station at the relevant point of time, and assigned duty in the traffic branch. Appellant, Iswar Bhimrao Bhamare (original accused No.2) was a Manager with the Yogesh Travels at Dhondaicha. PW-1 Narendra was plying mini door rickshaw owned by Mr. Ravidra Fakira Patil on Shindkheda - Dondaicha road. PW-1 Narendra could not ply the rickshaw for two months because of financial problem of his owner. After financial crises was over, PW-1 started plying mini door rickshaw. Accused No.1 – Sanjay demanded Rs.300/- towards Hapta / bribe of previous two months. On 14.11.2005, PW-1 Narendra met with accused No.1 Sanjay and shown his inability to pay Hapta and requested to allow him to ply the rickshaw, and he would arrange the money after some time. Accused No.1 Sanajay insisted for payment of Hapta, and in case of failure, threatened to file cases against him. PW-1 Narendra rushed to the A.C.B. office, Dhule and lodged F.I.R. vide exhibit 20 on 17.11.2005.

2(b) Accordingly, pre-trap panchanama came to be prepared in respect of bribe money of Rs.300/-. After arranging for the trap, PW-1 Narendra, Panch witness No.1 Chunilal Tukaram Nachave (PW-2) and the official of A.C.B. Mr. Dhanraj Dayama (PW-4) went to the bus stand area. PW-1 Narendra parked his rickshaw near Motilal Hotel, near Ranima Complex . PW-1 Narendra and Panch witness Chunilal (PW-2) entered in the Ranima complex. PW-1 Narendra met with accused No.1 Sanjay, and there were communication amongst them about plying of rickshaw and payment of arrears of two months. Accused No.1 Sanjay demanded bribe of Rs.300/- to PW.-1 Narendra in presence of panch witness Chunilal (PW-2). PW-1 Narendra offered the bribe amount of Rs.300/-, when accused No.1 Sanjay asked to PW- Narendra to handover the same to accused No.2 Ishwar. Accused No.2 Ishwar accepted the bribe amount as per the instructions of accused No.1 Sanjay. As per the signal given by PW-1 Narendra, the official of A.C.B. arrived at the spot and caught hold both the accused. The said premises was situated in a thickly populated area, as such, raiding party along with both the accused, PW-1 Narendra, and panchas came to Government Rest House. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the pant pocket of accused No.2 Ishwar. The post-trap panchanama came to be drawn. The accused were brought to the A.C.B. office. The crime came to be registered against both the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act” for the sake of convenience), and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

2(c) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the Special Court at Dhule. The learned Special Judge, Dhule was pleased to frame charge against accused No.1 Sanjay under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, and also frame charge against both the accused under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, and charge under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against accused No.2 Ishwar.

2(d) The trial was commenced before the Special Judge. The prosecution machinery has examined PW-1 Narendra, panch witness Chunilal (PW-2), PW-3 Mr. Vijay Chavan (Sanctioning Authority), and PW-4 Mr. Dhanraj Dayama (Investigating Officer).

2(e) The learned Special Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, and considering the argument advanced on behalf of both the sides was pleased to hold both the accused/appellants guilty for the above said offences under the P.C