The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal, the appellant (the accused) has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 1.9.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur (learned Judge of the trial court) in Special Case (ACB) No.4/2005 whereby the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

The accused is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) of the said Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Learned Judge of the trial court directed that both sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

The accused is serving in the Revenue Department of the Government of Maharashtra as Talathi. Complainant Gopal Mahadeo Bawane, is resident of village Kuksa, taluka Daryapur, district Amravati. The Revenue Department has divided “E-Class” Land in 20 plots admeasuring 3000 square feet each for allotment. The complainant filed an application on 16.8.2004 to tahsil office at Daryapur for allotment of the said plots. The accused was assigned with duty of verification and submit a report. It is alleged that when the complainant approached the accused, he demanded Rs.1200/- for giving favourable report. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Amravati (the bureau) and lodged a report on 22.9.2004.

3. After receipt of the report, office of the bureau called two panchas. In the presence of panchas, the complainant narrated the incident, which was verified by panchas from the complaint. After following due procedure, it was decided to conduct a raid and panchas and the complainant were called on 23.9.2004 in the office of the bureau. The complainant produced tainted amount of nine currency notes of Rs.100/-and two currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination and numbers of the currencies were noted. The demonstration as to anthracene powder and ultra violet lamp was shown. The said powder was applied on the tainted amount and kept in shirt pocket of the complainant. The instructions were given to pancha No.1 Kishor Devrao Khandpure to stay with the complainant and pancha No.2 was asked to remain along with the raiding party members. The complainant was further instructed to hand over the amount only on demand. Accordingly, pre-trap panchanama was drawn.

4. After the pre-trap panchanama, the complainant along with panchas and raiding party members reached at Daryapur.

After reaching at Daryapur, the complainant along with pancha No.1 Kishor Khandpure, proceeded towards Hotel Bhawani, near bus stand of Daryapur. After 10-15 minutes, the accused also came at the said hotel. There was a communication between the complainant and the accused. The complainant enquired about his work and the accused demanded amount. On demand, the complainant handed over the said amount of Rs.1000/- which is accepted by the accused and kept in the shirt pocket. After acceptance of the amount, the complainant has given pre-decided signal to the raiding party and the trap was laid. The amount was recovered from the accused. Accordingly, post-trap panchanama was drawn. Pancha No.1 disclosed as to the demand and acceptance. The office of the bureau lodged the report about the incident, seized relevant documents, and obtained sanction to prosecute the accused. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet is filed.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined in all 5 witnesses; viz. Gopal Bawane vide Exhibit-22 (PW1), the complainant; Kishor Deorao Khandpure vide Exhibit-40 (PW2), the shadow pancha; Anand Sharadchandra Khedkar