JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. In this Appeal, the question arises whether the Special Judge was right in acquitting Respondent No. 1-accused for the offence punishable under section 7 and under section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “said Act”) and was also justified in acquitting Respondent No. 2-accused for the offence of abetment punishable under section 12 of the said Act.

2. The Special Judge acquitted both the Respondents-accused for the reason that offence on the point of demand was not satisfactory and there was variance in between the evidence of the complainant PW-1 Shri Bhavsar and trap panch PW-3 Jaikumar Vanzari on material particulars. Whereas according to learned APP even though there were variances, it does not pertain to the material aspects but there are minor variance which normally occurs in evidence of two witnesses. Whereas learned Advocate for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment. So the question is whether variances noted by the Special Judge are on material particulars or whether they can be said to be natural variances and the question is whether Special Judge was justified in giving benefit to the Respondents. On considering those variances, this Court feels that they are variances not at all. Either there is no variance in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 on those aspects emphasized by the trial Court or if all aspects on record are considered, then it cannot be said that they are variances. After the said findings are corrected, still this Court will have to see whether there is scope for interference in the judgment of acquittal on the basis of scope of Appeal as settled in catena of judgments.

Prosecution Case

3. The complainant PW-1 Mahesh Bhavsar runs a worshop by name “Ribhavari Metal works” along with his father. There was electrical supply to his workshop since 2001. The complainant got bill for the month of September 2003, for Rs. 7,080/- and it was excessive. That is why the complainant visited the office of M.S.E.B. Solapur and met Junior Engineer, Respondent No. 1-Shri Mhetre. After that linemen Shinde and Respondent No. 1 Mhetre visited spot one after another. They noticed some wrong connection of the wirings. Ultimately, the connection was disconnected.

4. On this background the complainant-Bhavsar alleged that for restoration of electric supply, initially Respondent No. 1 demanded Rs. 5,000/- and later on, it was settled at Rs. 3,000/-. The complainant was unhappy, approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint on 23.09.2003 (Page 66). The trap was laid on 24th September 2003. It was not Respondent No. 1-Mhetre, who accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000/- but on his instructions, Respondent No. 2-Shri Shaikh, private person has accepted Rs. 3,000/-. This is the background for launching of prosecution.

5. During trial, the prosecution in all examined four witnesses. They are as follows:

(1) PW-1 Complainant - Mahesh Bhavsar

(2) PW-2 Sanctioning Authority - Ashok Manekar

(3) PW-3 Jaikumar Vanzari (Panch witness)

(4) PW-4 Dilip Shephal (Investigating Officer)

On this background the Special Judge acquitted both the Respondents.

6. It will be relevant to consider important events. They are as follows:

(a) On 15th February 2001, the complainant applied for electricity connection to his workshop.

(b) In July 2001 -- he was sanctioned electric connection.

(c) September 2003 -- he got excess bill for Rs. 7,080/-

(d) He met Junior Engineer Shri Mhetre, who assured him to send linemen to his workshop.

(e) Linemen Shinde visited and tested the meter and found that wires of meter were not fixed properly. Linemen Shinde advised the complainant to meet accused No. 1-Mhetre.

(f) The father of complainant met accused No. 1-Mhetre.

(g) After 2-3 days Respondent No. 1-Mhetre visited the workshop and found that wirings are not proper. Accused No. 1-Mhetre told him that this fault is to be informed to his Superior Officers.

(h) For 8 to 10 days the workshop was cl