The judgment underscores the necessity of proving a specific demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act and highlights the significance of the accused's authority in the alleged offense.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Parbhani in Special Case No. 01/2000, by which, the learned Special Judge has held the Appellant guilty of 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). The Appellant is directed to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 7 of P.C. Act. He is further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d). Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of Prosecution in short is that the Appellant was working as an Extension Officer, Zilla Parishad Parbhani in Panchayat Samiti, Gangakhed. While he was working as such, he demanded a bribe of Rs.1500/- from the Complainant – Narayan Parande (PW-1), who was then Sarpanch of village Lasina in Sonpeth Taluka of Parbhani District. Bribe was demanded for sanctioning and disbursing an amount of Rs.40,000/- in favour of Gram Panchayat. The Complainant had proposed and persuaded proposal with Panchayat, Gangakhed for construction of a cement road in the village under the Backward Locality Development Scheme. The said proposal thereafter was submitted to the Social Welfare Branch of Panchayat Samiti. For the said proposal, a budget of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned. Out of the said amount, two installments of Rs.80,000/- were released. On 20.08.1999, Complainant met the Appellant and made an enquiry about the work. The Appellant called the Complainant on 23.08.1999. There was a discussion of demand of Rs.5000/- and the said amount came to be settled to Rs.1500/-.

3. The Complainant in view of this demand, made a report to Anti Corruption Bureau, Parbhani (hereinafter referred as ‘ACB). PW-5 working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, who decided to lay a trap against the Appellant and thus the trap was arranged. It is alleged that the trap was successful. Thereafter investigation was completed and Prosecution came to be launched.

4. It is the defence of the Appellant that he never demanded any amount towards bribe. The amount which was given to him, was the amount towards arranging an Orchestra Programme in the village of Complainant (PW-1) for Ganpati Festival. The amount was settled to Rs.5000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.1500/- was taken as advance amount from the Complainant. The Appellant and his daughter are Singers and they were working in one Orchestra. It is further defence that the Appellant had no power to sanction or disburse the amount and thus he was not having any authority to take a decision in respect of sanction or disbursement of amount. Further Appellant’s case is that the evidence at the time of trap, shows that there was a discussion about arranging an Orchestra in the village.

5. In support of its case, the Prosecution examined five witnesses. However, PW-1/Complainant and PW-3 were declared hostile. The Prosecution thus rests mainly on depositions of PW-2/shadow panch, PW-4/CEO, Z.P., Parbhani; PW-3/Sanctioning Authority and PW-5/Investigating Officer, who conducted the trap carried investigation and filed a charge-sheet.

6. Since the case is under Prevention of Corruption Act, the evidence needs to be scrutinized carefully. The first witness is Complainant namely Narayan Sopanrao Parande. In his deposition, he has stated that at the relevant time, he was Sarpanch of Lasina Gram Panchayat. He submitted that a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat for construction of a cement road in the locality of persons belonging to backward class. Pursuant to the resolution, an estimate of work was prepared and the proposal was subm