JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant (accused) has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.5.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Gadchiroli (learned Judge of the trial court) in Special Case No.2/2013.

2. By the said judgment and order of conviction impugned, learned Judge of the trial court convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case emerges from police papers and recorded evidence are as under:

One Shobha Raju Gundawar, was complainant. She was retail kerosene dealer at Bori, taluka Aheri, district Gadchiroli. The accused was serving as Police Inspector and was attached to Aheri Police Station. On 5.2.2011, the accused visited her house and verified stock of kerosene and found 401 liters kerosene in excess. She approached the accused and, as per allegation, the accused demanded Rs.20,000/- for non-registering the offence and to file a favourable reply in her anticipatory bail application. It is further alleged that on 2.3.2011, when she was released on bail, the accused contacted her and demanded Rs.20,000/- from her. She agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- within 4-5 days and remaining Rs.10,000/- later on. On 6.3.2011, at about 1:30 pm, as per allegation, one Linga Durge came to her house and the accused demanded the same amount by calling on the mobile phone of said Linga. She was asked to pay the amount by 9.3.2011. As she was not wiling to pay the amount, she approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Gadchiroli and lodged report on 8.3.2011.

4. After receipt of the report, officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau called two panchas. In the presences of the panchas, the complainant was asked to narrate the incident which was verified by the panchas from First Information Report. After following due procedure, it was decided to conduct a raid and the panchas and complainant were called in the office on 9.3.2011 before proceeding to conduct raid. The demand was verified by asking the complainant to call the accused. The complainant produced tainted amount, before the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau, ten currency notes denomination of Rs.1000/-. A demonstration, as to use and characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was shown. The said solution was applied on the tainted amount and kept in the purse of the complainant. Some instructions were given to pancha No.1 Charitra Eknath Uikey to stay with the complainant and pancha No.2 was asked to stay along with the raiding party members. The complainant was further instructed to hand over the amount only on demand. Accordingly, a pre-trap panchanama was drawn.

5. After the pre-trap panchanama, the complainant along with the panchas and raiding party members went to the office of the accused. The complainant along with pancha No.1 visited the office of the accused and the accused demanded the amount and the complainant handed over the same to him. The accused was caught after the complainant gave signal to the raiding party members. Pancha No.1 disclosed as to demand and acceptance. The amount was recovered from drawer of table of the accused. Accordingly, post-trap panchanama was drawn. The officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau lodged report about the said incident and seized relevant documents and sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused.

6. During trial, the prosecution examined in all 6 witnesses viz. Shobha Raju Gundawar (PW1) vide Exhibit-31, the complainant; Charitra Eknath Uike (PW2) vide Exhibit-36, the shadow pancha; Sanju Shankar Dayal (PW3) vide Exhibit-8 on sanction; Chandrakant