The need for corroboration of evidence in corruption cases, the importance of a valid sanction, and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Kishore C. Sant, J. - This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Special Case No. 01/1999, whereby the present appellant-accused is held guilty of 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 two years and to pay fine of Rs.2500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for six months for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. He is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2500/- in default to suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 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 Head Constable in the Police Department at Kopargaon Police Station. The complainant namely Bhimrao lodged a complaint that his cousin brothers assaulted his another cousin namely Punja. The complainant and his brother - Dashrath tried to intervene in the dispute. The cousin brothers therefore assaulted the complainant and his brother by iron bar due to which complainant sustained bleeding injury on his head. The complainant therefore with his wife, his brother Dashrath, his brother-in-law Haribhau and cousin Punja went to the Kopargaon Police Station to lodge a report. The accused referred him to Hospital for treatment. The complainant was therefore admitted in Rural Hospital, Rahata and was discharged on 09.05.1998.

. The complainant after discharge from hospital again went to the police station and handed over injury certificate to accused and requested him to take legal action against his cousin brothers. The accused demanded a bribe of Rs.2000/- for taking action against cousin brothers of complainant and also to arrest them. The amount was settled to Rs.1000/-. It is alleged that the complainant took amount of Rs.1000/- from his employer/Pyarasinh Sandhu and paid Rs.500/- to accused and assured to pay remaining amount within 7 to 8 days. On 10.05.1998, the cousins gave abuses to the wife of complainant and therefore she again went to police station on 11.05.1998 to lodge report. At that time, accused again demanded remaining amount of Rs.500/- to the wife of complainant, he further threatened her to file a chapter case against complainant if amount of Rs.500/- is not paid. On 13.05.1998, the complainant again went to police station to see the accused. At that time he came to know that the accused is in the Court and therefore he went and met the accused in the Court. Accused asked the complainant as to whether he has brought Rs.500/-, the complainant requested for sometime to arrange for the remaining amount. That time again accused threatened the complainant that he would initiate a Chapter proceeding against him. Since there was demand of bribe, the complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau, Nashik, where P.I. Bhalerao recorded his report on 15.05.1998.

3. On 14.05.1998, panchas were called to the office of ACB and trap was arranged. The prosecution alleged that the trap was successful. After the trap, investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet came to be filed. The prosecution came to be launched against the appellant. On recording the evidence and holding a trial, the learned trial Judge held the accused guilty of the said offences of P.C. Act and thus the accused is before this Court.

4. The case of the accused is that he has not demanded and accepted any amount towards bribe and he is falsely implicated by the complainant in the offence. It is defence of the accused that the complainant wanted this accused to take action against his cousins and arrest them. Since the accused told that it was not a case where arrest was required. It is for this reason the complainant got annoyed and lodged a