The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the fundamental aspects of demand and acceptance in corruption cases to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

P.D. Naik, J. - This is an appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2013, passed by Special Judge, Ichalkaranji, District-Kolhapur, in Special Case No. 2 of 2006. The respondent was acquitted of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act', for short).

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(a) The complainant was conducting business of selling Tobacco and Gutkha in village Mankapur, Taluka Chikodi, District-Belgaum. On 13th May, 2005, one Amit Jawahar Shah, resident of Ichalkaranji purchased Gutkha worth Rs. 9,000/- from the complainant in Mankapur and was carrying the same to Sangli for sale. He was caught while in possession of Gutkha by Sangli Octroi Naka. Thereafter Amit Shah called the complainant disclosing the said fact and asked him to come at Octroi Naka, Sangli to settle the matter. The complainant told him that there is ban in State of Maharashtra on Gutka, and, he has purchased it at Mankapur, Karnataka State. He is not responsible for action against him.

(b) On 14th May, 2005, Shah gave call to the complainant and threatened him that he would send Gundas. On 14th May, 2005 the complainant received a call from Assistant Sub Inspector, Gaonbhag Police Station, Mr. Dhanpal Kamble (accused), who told him to compensate Shah and threatened him of consequences if he fail to do so.

(c) The complainant visited Gaonbhag police station on 14th May, 2005 at 10:00 p.m. to lodge complaint against Mr. Shah. The accused was available at police station. The complainant disclosed the threats received by him. The accused told him not to lodge complaint as he knows Mr. Shah and he would convince him. The complainant returned home.

(d) On 15th May, 2005, the accused again telephoned complainant on his cell phone and told him that he has settled the matter and demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, from complainant. He avoided to make payment by giving excuse that he is going out of station for two days and after returning, he would meet him.

(e) On 18th May, 2005 at about 07:00 p.m., the accused gave call to complainant and again demanded the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant disconnected the call. On 20th May, 2005, at about 08:30 to 09:00 a.m., the accused met complainant and told him that inspite of work being done by him, the complainant has not paid the demanded amount. After negotiation the amount was reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant decided to pay the said amount on the next day. The complainant was not interested in making such payment by way of bribe to the accused and, hence, he approached the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Kolhapur.

(e) The complainant narrated his grievance to the ACB Officer, which was reduced into writing, as per his say.

(f) The ACB officer then summoned persons to act as panch witnesses. The panch witnesses than visited ACB Office. They were introduced to complainant. The facts were narrated by complainant to them. Complaint was shown to the panch witness. Thereafter, the characteristics and features of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp were explained to the complainant and the pancha witnesses. The currency notes were produced by the complainant in the denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 100/-. The amount of Rs. 2,000/-, was arranged by the complainant for the purpose of trap. The numbers of currency notes were recorded in the panchanama. Anthracene powder was applied to the currency notes.

(g) Necessary instructions were given to the complainant, pancha no. 1 Balkrushna Kundale and panch no. 2 Shailesh Wagh as well as the staff of ACB. Complainant was instructed to stay in the house with panch no. 1, and, on arrival of the accused, make conversation with him on the subject, and, hand over the currency notes by removing it from his pocket. In the event, the accused accepts the money, he should give signal to the raiding party. P.W.1 panch witness Balkriks