The main legal point established in the judgment is the conviction of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act based on the evidence of demand and the variances in testimonies.

JUDGMENT

S. M. Modak, J. - This is a State's appeal against judgment of acquittal delivered by the Special judge (ACB) Kolhapur. Though the Complainant complained against two Police officers, action was taken against present Respondent only. He faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was acquitted vide judgment dated 13.07.2016.

2. Trial Court noticed variances in the testimonies of Complainant PW-1 and trap panch PW-2. On the basis of grievance of Complainant-Sayaji (that real complaint is not coming forward) trial court given benefit of doubt to the Respondent. So also the Respondent was not having official work of 'giving reply in return of property application' and still sanction was given. So trial Court held there was non application of mind. This is a case wherein the trial Court totally disbelieved the Complainant without verifying what he has said against the Respondent.

3. So in this appeal we have to ascertain :-

a) are there material Variances?

b) whether there is substance in the grievance of PW-1 that real complaint has not come on record? and,

c) whether there is non application of mind by the sanctioning authority?

Role of appellate Court

4. These issues need to be decided on the background of limitations on the power of appellate Court in case of judgment of acquittal. Learned App Shri H. J. Dedhia advanced his submission and learned Advocate Shri Anand Patil advanced his submission. Learned advocate Shri Patil relied upon the judgments in case of Dr. Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) Cr. LJ 705 and in case of Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 415 which deals with scope of appeal against judgment of acquittal. It is true that judgment of acquittal is not to be interfered with unless there is perversity in the findings. On appreciation of evidence, if the view taken by the trial Court is possible view, the findings need not be interfered with. The appellate court is bound to take decision & come to conclusion only on the basis of objective evaluation of evidence. The findings need not be interfered with just because different view is possible. If there is different view, it has to be on the basis of proper appreciation.

5. While doing this exercise, the appellate court is governed by the principles of Evidence Act. Whether particular fact has happened or not is to be decided on the basis of test of prudent man. If foundational facts are proved, court can take the help of presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Apart from this, the substantive provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and more specifically Section 7, Section 13 (1)(d) need to be considered.

Prosecution story

6. First of all the prosecution story needs to be looked it. Anti Corruption Bureau normally swung into action only when there is tussle in between a private individual and public servant. Private person approached public office for some work. Sometime he has got a legitimate work. Sometime, he is required to visit public office when he breaches/violates the law. In this case, the Complainant-Sayaji Desai alongwith his wife Nirmala were involved in an offence bearing No. 89 of 2002, forgery, cheating to Bhudargad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha. There were several accused. Both of them were arrested and then released on bail. The investigation was transferred to C.I.D.. Deputy Superintendent Chougule was investigating and API Katkar present Respondent was his associate.

7. Both these officers directly and indirectly demanded illegal gratification from the Complainant Sayaji. Sayaji's wife Nirmala has filed an application for return of ornaments from the local Court. That is why first he met Deputy Superintendent Chougule for his co-operation by giving favourable reply. He cleverly send Sayaji to Respondent Katkar and through Katkar, there was demand for Rs. 20,000/-. Nirmala lost before the