IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony can undermine the case, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The Appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dtd. 11/3/2003 passed by learned Special Judge Solapur in Special Case No. 04 of 2001 convicting the Appellant for offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution is as under:-

(i) The accused was working as Maintenance Surveyor and posted at Solapur. Complainant is the Trustee of Panjaji Mashid Hindu Trust. The Trustees had made an application for entering their names to the Trust Property. The Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dtd. 27/6/2000 directed to enter the names of new trustees. (ii) On 1/8/2000, the complainant had visited the office of Maintenance Surveyor and made an application for entering the name of Trustees to the Trust property. He submitted requisite documents and affidavit along with orders of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The application was accepted and the complainant was directed to meet the accused, who was working at table No.6.

(iii) On 16/8/2000, the complainant along with his friends met accused, who was in-charge of table No.6. The complainant inquired about the status of his application. He was told to make inquiry after one month.

(iv) On 18/9/2000, the complainant along with his friend again visited the office of accused. He made enquiry about application of Trust. The accused told him that, the application is received and he should follow up after eight days. (v) On 5/10/2000, the complainant met the accused at 02:00 p.m. and enquired about his work. The accused told him that, the names mentioned in the change report are not readable. He was advised to make an application to Charity Commissioner and obtain fresh copy. The complainant made fresh application and gave names of all new Trustees.

(vi) On 19/10/2000, the complainant met accused and again enquired about his work. He was told to make inquiry after eight days. On 1/11/2000, the complainant met the accused and he was asked to wait in the canteen. The accused told the complainant that for such type of work he charges of Rs.5, 000.00. The complainant told the accused about his financial condition and it is not possible to him to arrange the said amount. The accused then reduced the amount to Rs.2, 000.00. The complainant told that it is not possible to pay and he would discuss the said issue other trustees and come. (vii) The complainant discussed about payment of amount with other trustees, who did not agree over it and told that it was not within their right to pay amount and get the work done.

(viii) On 2/11/2000, the complainant met the accused and told him that it was not possible to pay the amount. The accused reduced the amount to Rs.1, 500.00. Complainant showed inability to pay the amount and thereafter, the amount was reduced Rs.1, 000.00. Accused told the complainant that in the event the said amount is not arranged, his application would be rejected. (ix) After one months complainant visited office of accused to find out it his work is done i.e. on 4/12/2000. He learnt that accused had gone to Court. Complainant again visited office of accused on 6/12/2000 and enquired about his work. Accused told him that he is in haste to go to Court. He told complainant to meet afterwards. He also told complainant that his application is kept pending. He told complainant to come on next day at 12:00 hrs. with Rs.1, 000.00.

(x) The complainant approached A.C.B.. He was asked to visit the office on the next day. The complainant visited the office of ACB on 7/12/2000 and lodged the complaint. His complaint was recorded. Panch witnesses were called. Instructions were given to complainant and panchas. Anthracine powder was applied to notes. Notes were kept in the pocket of the complainant. Pre-trap panchnama was recorded.

(x