JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Special Court (ACB), Nagpur, delivered on 6th April, 2009, the State has preferred this appeal. The Trial Court has acquitted respondent of offences charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

2. PW-1 Manohar Ramchandra Yetikumbhare is complainant; PW-2 Bhola Kisan Gedam is panch witness – shadow witness; PW-3 Dr. Bhushan Kumar Madanmohan Upadhyay is Competent Authority, who gave sanction for the prosecution; and PW-4 Sunil Vinayak Kelkar is Investigating Officer. The defence also examined one witness called DW-1 Dr. Manohar Parashram Maheshgawai.

3. It is prosecution’s case that PW-1 had lodged a complaint on 22nd July, 2003 against one Madhukar Neool, resident of Bharatwada Village. They had a dispute over land. Madhukar Neool also lodged a complaint against PW-1. The complaints filed by both PW-1 and Madhukar Neool were given to accused for enquiry and further investigation.

4. On 7th August, 2003, accused visited Village Bharatwada and conducted an enquiry. Accused that time was working as Assistant Police Sub-Inspector at Kalmeshwar Police Station. It is prosecution’s case that during the course of enquiry, accused demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification from complainant PW-1 for disposal of enquiry in favour of PW-1. Accused told PW-1 to bring money to the Police Station on 12th August, 2003. As PW-1 was not willing to give any bribe to accused, he went to lodge complaint with the Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nagpur. Accordingly, on 11th August, 2003, the report of complainant (PW-1) was lodged with ACB, Nagpur.

5. Following the report by complainant PW-1, panch witnesses were called in the office of ACB and panch witnesses and complainant were given instructions regarding the trap. On the basis of the trap laid, PW-1 in the presence of PW-2 gave marked currency to accused. Accused was caught red handed and marked currency was recovered from accused. This was followed by lodging F.I.R., investigation, sanction, etc. Charge-sheet was filed before the Trial Court. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence of prosecution’s witnesses and defence witness, concluded that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Before I proceed further, I have to note that the dispute between Madhukar Neool and complainant (PW-1) was that both were owning adjacent plots of land. Madhukar Neool was under the impression that some portion of the land that belonged to him had been encroached upon by complainant (PW-1). Therefore, both lodged report against each other and accused was given the task of conducting enquiry along with taking preventive action. In this background, the scope of accused was only to conduct enquiry and take preventive action and in other words, it would mean that accused should ensure that there was no law and order situation. Whether there was encroachment by complainant or whether the land in possession of complainant actually belonged to said Madhukar Neool would not have been within the scope of work of the accused and that had to be solved by having the land measured and checked with the title documents. Therefore, it is very difficult to see any reason why accused would demand money from complainant.

8. Shri Damle, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that if one considers the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the theory of demand and acceptance was proved. Shri Damle brought to the notice of this Court the testimony of DW-1 and made an attempt to discredit the evidence of DW-1. Shri Damle submitted that in the cross-examination of DW-1, it has come to light that complainant (PW-1) met accused for the first time and in such background how would the accused offer a loan of Rs.1,000/- to PW-1. The relevance of this is that the defence of accused is PW-1 was only returning th