IMPORTANT POINT
The essential elements of demand and acceptance of bribe must be proven for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the sanction for prosecution must be granted with due application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 31/8/2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Khamgaon (learned Judge of the trial court) in Special Anti Corruption Case No.01/2003, the appellant (accused) has preferred this appeal.

2. By the said judgment impugned, the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act) and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine Rs.500.00, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.

He is also convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine Rs.1000.00, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months.

3. In brief, the prosecution case runs as follows:

The accused was serving as Patwari at Pimpri-Deshmukh, halka taluka Shegaon, district Buldana. Village Sujatpur is within jurisdiction of Pimpri-Deshmukh where agricultural land of Raghunath Tandale (the complainant) is situated. The complainant is owner of gat No.123. The father of the complainant purchased 7acres 38 gunthas agricultural land on 21/5/1948 and during his life time, the said land was partitioned between the complainant and his two brothers. The complainan and his brother Jagannath were allotted 1H7R land each and 1H8R was allotted to elder brother of the complainant. The share allotted to the complainant is numbered as gat No.123. The complainant in the month of August 2001, came to know that area of his agricultural land was shown less as 0.71R in 7.12 extract though it was 1H7R and, therefore, he filed an application addressing the accused on 30/8/2001 requesting correction in the 7/12 extract. The copies of the said application were forwarded to the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer. Though the complainant repeatedly requested the accused to correct the area, the accused had not taken any steps and, therefore, he made separate application before the Tahsildar, Shegaon. On the basis of the above application, the case was registered bearing No.RTS/64/ Sujatpur/3/2001/2002. The case was fixed for hearing. However, the accused remained absent on all dates except 18/5/2002 and 4/6/2002 and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued against him by Naib Tahsildar asking his explanation for not attending proceedings and directed him to remain present in Tahsil Office on 19/6/2002. The said notice was handed over to the complainant to serve upon the accused and, therefore, the complainant went to his house on 13/6/2002 and served him the show cause notice. At that time also, the complainant requested the accused to increase the area of the agricultural land gat No.123. On the request of the complainant, the accused demanded Rs.1000.00 which was reduced to Rs.500.00. The accused then asked the complainant to attend the Tahsil Office on 15/6/2002 though hearing was fixed on 19/6/2002 along with cash amount Rs.500.00 and on the same day he would be supplied 7/12 extract of his land. As the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount, he approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Nagpur (the bureau) and lodged a report.

4. After receipt of the report, the office of the bureau called two panchas on 15/6/2002 and in presence of panchas the complainant narrated the incident which was verified by panchas from the complaint. After following a due procedure, it was decided to conduct a raid. The complainant had produced five currency notes of Rs.100.00. A demonstration as to phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution was shown. The said solution was applied on tainted notes. The said notes were kept in shirt pocket of the complainant. The instructions were given to pancha No.1 Sampat Zine and pancha No.2. Pancha No.1 was asked to stay along with the complainant . The complainant was instructed to hand over the amo