The judgment emphasizes the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

Kishore C. Sant, J. - This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 16.07.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No. 17/1998, whereby the present appellant-accused is held guilty of the ofence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' for short). He is sentenced to sufer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for six months and to pay fne of Rs.250/- in default to sufer R.I. for ffteen days for the ofence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. He is further sentenced to sufer R.I. for one year and to pay fne of Rs.250/- in default to sufer Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for ffteen days for the ofence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act. Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The story of the Prosecution in short is as below:

The present appellant/accused was working as a Maintenance Surveyor in the City Survey Ofice, Aurangabad. The complainant namely Manoj Gadia purchased house (CTS No.5725) at Nagarkhana, Aurangbad from one Jairaj Pandey on 19.08.1997. The complainant applied to City Survey Ofice to record his name in P.R. card by taking mutation entry on the basis of sale-deed and for that he met the appellant, where it is alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.2000/-. On 24.11.1997, complainant again met the appellant who told him to come on 26.11.1997 with Rs.1000/-. The complainant therefore, approached the ofice of ACB, Aurangabad and lodged a complaint against the appellant. On receipt of the complaint, ACB decided to lay a trap on the same day. After trap and completing investigation, the prosecution came to be launched against the appellant.

3. The defence of the accused is that he has not demanded and accepted any amount towards bribe and he is falsely implicated in the ofence.

4. There are total fve witnesses examined by the prosecution. The frst witness is sanctioning authority namely Pandit s/o Ramji Kanekar (PW-1), Deputy Director Land records, Aurangabad. He was authorised to appoint and remove a person to the post of Surveyor under Section 9(1) of the M.L.R. Code. He also stated that there is a notifcation issued by the State of Maharashtra dated 19.06.1997 under the provisions of M.L.R. Code. He deposed that he received the papers of investigation of Crime No.69/1997 of City Chowk Police Station. He studied those papers and he was satisfed that a case is made out to accord the sanction and accordingly accorded the same. He proved the sanction order at Exhibit-12.

5. In the cross-examination, he stated that the maintenance surveyor is empowered to propose the mutations before the City Surveyor. Thereafter he has to issue a 15 days notice to the parties, after the City Survey Oficer permits him to record the mutations. He accepted that no such notice in form no.4 was issued by the City Survey Oficer. He further stated that he did not know whether there was dispute about City Survey No.5725 of Shri. Pande. He denied the suggestion that he has not studied the papers of investigation and accorded a sanction mechanically.

6. The second witness is Complainant namely Manoj Amrutlal Gadiya (PW-2). In his deposition, he stated that he had purchased a house bearing CTS No.5725 Nagarkhana Galli adm. 105.7 Sq. Mtrs. He had moved an application in City Survey Ofice for mutation of the house. On 19.11.1997, he met one Mr. Khan in the City Survey Ofice, who demanded Rs.2000/- for the work. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.1000/- to him. On 24.11.1997, he again met Mr. Khan, who told him that the complainant will have to incur the expenses of Rs.1000/- and called him with money on 26.11.1997. The complainant therefore lodged the complaint with ACB, Aurangabad. He proved the contents of the complaint Exhibit 26. He further deposed that Shri. Borse - Investigating Oficer called two Government Servants to act as panchas. He narrated the complaint to the panchas. He was instructed to hand over the currency