IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt, using direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the presumption under Section 20. The failure to establish the demand for gratification led to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Solapur convicting the appellant (accused No. 1) for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter ‘the PC Act’ for short) and thereby sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:

At the relevant time the appellant-accused No. 1 was working as an Awal Karkun and Executive Magistrate in the Tahsil Office, North Solapur. The accused No. 2 was working as a Writer in the Tahsil Office. One Ramesh Mansawale was related to PW-7 Parshuram Khadgikar was detained in jail on 21.07.1992 in Chapter Case No. 191 of 1992 registered by the accused No. 1 on the basis of a report submitted by Jail Road Police Station, Solapur. PW-7 contacted Advocate Mr. Abaji - PW-5 from Solapur on 23.07.1992 for securing the release of Ramesh. A vakalatnama was handed over to PW-7 and an application was addressed to the Superintendent of Jail to obtain signature on the vakalatnama. PW-7 obtained such signature by visiting District Jail and handed over signed vakalatnama to PW-5 on 27.07.1992.

3. The complainant (since deceased) - Manik Waghmode used to work as Advocate’s Clerk with Advocate Abaji and other advocates. On 28.07.1992 the complainant visited the office of PW-5. PW-5 handed over the vakalatnama and asked the complainant to obtain orders for bail from the appellant-accused No. 1 to release Ramesh. The complainant went to Tahsil Office. The appellant was discharging duties at Tahsil Office, North Solapur as Executive Magistrate. The complainant handed over the application to the appellant to release Ramesh on bond supported by the vakalatnama. At that time the accused No. 1 asked the complainant to pay him Rs. 100/- for releasing Ramesh on a personal bond. When the complainant requested for reduction of the amount of demand, the appellant declined to do so. The appellant asked the complainant to pay him Rs. 100/- between 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and returned to him the application and vakalatnama.

4. The complainant filed a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau, Solapur (‘ACB’ for short). On recording of the complaint, Police Inspector Shaikh decided to lay a trap. In response to the request letter sent by Police Inspector Shaikh, panch witnesses Shivaji Nanaware and Vyankatesh Dhale came in the ACB office. The typed copy of the complaint lodged by the complainant was handed over to the panch witnesses. Two currency notes of Rs. 50/- were smeared with anthracene powder.

5. It is pertinent to note that the initial demand was not verified. So far as the initial demand is concerned, the complainant is the only witness. The trap was laid. Accordingly, on 28.07.1992 the complainant along with panch witnesses went to the Tahsil Office to handover the amount as demanded. The appellant asked the complainant to handover the amount to accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 accepted the amount. The raiding party was informed. The appellant and the accused No. 2 came to be arrested.

6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW-1 is Superintendent of District Prison Jail, Solapur before whom the vakalatnama was signed. PW-2 was working as a Clerk in the Tahsil Office, North Solapur. PW-3 is Naib Tahsildar who was examined for the purpose of explaining the procedure for securing the release of the person detained in chapter cases. PW-4 is the panch witness who accompanied the complainant at the time of trap. PW-5 is the advocate who represe