The lack of authority of the appellant to recommend or transfer the sweeper and the unreliable nature of the evidence were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dtd. 28/3/2012 passed by the Special Judge, Amalner in Special Case No.1 of 2012, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence(s) punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P. C. Act, 1988') and therefore sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year, respectively and pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 each. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and two months, respectively.

2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

The appellant was working as Sanitary Inspector with Amalner Municipal Council. PW1 - Premchand Chavan (complainant) was serving as a Sweeper with the same Municipal Council. The appellant made a demand of Rs.3,000.00 from the complainant to avoid his transfer. The demand was scaled down to Rs.2,000.00. The complainant paid him Rs.1,500.00 by raising a loan from one Guru Ramsing Gogale. The appellant still insisted for balance amount of Rs.500.00. The complainant, therefore, approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nashik. The complaint (Exh.20) lodged by him on 17/6/2011, therefore came to be recorded. PW4 - Ravikant Sonawane, Police Inspector, ACB Nashik, decided to verify the demand and lay a trap. He, therefore, secured presence of two Government servants to act as panch witnesses. He gave the complainant and witnesses necessary instructions. It was 17/6/2011. On the next day i.e. on 18/6/2011, the complainant accompanied by the raiding party, came down to Amalner. The complainant and a shadow witness PW2 - Bharat Bahot met the appellant in his office in the morning. The appellant made a demand of Rs.500.00. The complainant agreed to pay him the amount during the course of the day. Both, the complainant and shadow witness returned to the raiding party. Pre-trap panchanama (Exh.25) was drawn. Again the complainant accompanied by shadow witness went to the office and met the appellant. He (appellant) made a demand of Rs.500.00. Assured the complainant that he would not be transferred. The complainant, therefore, paid the amount to the appellant and gave a predetermined signal. The raiding party arrived. The appellant came to be overpowered. A sum of Rs.500.00 was seized from him. As the crowd had gathered, the raiding party took the appellant to Amalner Police Station. Post-trap panchanama was drawn there. On completion of the investigation, all the police papers were submitted to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Amalner, for obtaining his sanction for prosecution of the appellant. The sanction (Exh.30) was obtained. The appellant came to be proceeded against by filing charge-sheet.

3. The Special Judge, framed the charge (Exh.14). The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defense is of false implication. It is his case that his wife runs a shop of hard-wares, etc. It is the case of appellant that the complainant had purchased a water tank on credit. The complainant paid the appellant the outstanding amount.

4. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of evidence, convicted the appellant as stated above.

5. Heard the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant. Also heard the learned APP for the respondent State.

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant would submit that the complainant was serving as Sweeper. He was uneducated and illiterate as well. Authority to transfer the Sweepers was with the Chief Officer. Supervisor had an authority to recommend transfer of Sweepers. The appellant was a Sanitary Inspector. He did not have power either to recommend or transfer any of the Sweepers. There were ACB at Dhule and Jalgaon as well. One Jay Chavan had accompanied the complainant to ACB office Nashik. It is not known as to why they approached ACB Nashik instead of approaching the nearest ACB. The shadow witness belonged to the complainant's community. There is, therefore, every reason for the