The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court emphasized the need for clear and reliable evidence to establish the basic ingredients of the offence.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dtd. 10/08/2001 passed by the Special Judge, Nashik, in Special Case No.4 of 1993. He was convicted and sentenced as Digitally follows :

(a) The Appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act') and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(b) He was also convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1, 000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(c) Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Besides the Appellant, there was one more accused i.e. accused No.2 Vishnu Dagdu Gaikar. He was acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable u/s 7 and 12 of the PC Act. He was completely acquitted. He was not charged for any other offence.

3. Heard Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy), learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.

4. The prosecution case is that the complainant, Ashok Jadhav had an ancestral land at village Samnera, Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik. After death of his father on 08/05/1991 he had made an application for transferring the land in his own name. It is alleged that on 12/11/1991, the complainant met the Appellant in his office. It is alleged that the Appellant demanded Rs.400.00 for doing his work. On 17/11/1991 the Appellant had gone to his village. Even on that day again, he repeated the demand. The complainant did not want to make the payment. Therefore he approached the ACB ofifce at Nashik and gave his complaint. The officer arranged for two Panchas, preparation was made to conduct the raid and on 19/11/1991 in the morning, the raiding party along with the Panchas and the complainant went to the office of the Appellant. Initially the Appellant handed over one extract of the piece of land to the complainant and he asked the complainant to come back after 15 minutes. The complainant and the Pancha again went to the office of the Appellant. But at that time, he was not in the office. He had gone in the village. The complainant and the Pancha went in search of him. They met him. The Appellant, the Pancha and the complainant then went to a hotel to have tea. In the meantime, the accused No.2 came there. It is the prosecution case that the accused No.1 told the accused No.2 to accept the money from the complainant and then he left for his office. The complainant handed over Rs.400.00 to the accused No.2 and gave the prearranged signal to the raiding party. The accused No.2 was caught. His hands and the currency notes were checked under the ultra violet lamp. The prosecution case is that the accused No.2 had accepted the amount on behalf of the accused No.1. The raiding party went to the office of the accused No.1. In the office, another extract was seized. The ACB officer then lodged his FIR at Ghoti police station at C.R.No.24/1991. The investigation was carried out and the sanctions were obtained. Both the accused were working in different capacities as public servants. Therefore sanctions were obtained from their superiors. The charge-sheet was filed. The case was tried before the Special Judge as mentioned earlier.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses including the complainant, the Pancha, the Investigating Officer and the two sanctioning authorities. The defence of the accused was of total denial. In addition, the Appellant gave his written statement and also stated in the answer to the question put to him that he had exchange of words with the complainant during the Appellant's election duty. The complainant had abused him and had threatened the Appellant. He further