Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was quashed due to incorrect charge framing and lack of necessary sanction, rendering the trial null and void.

JUDGMENT :

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant (the accused) has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.10.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court for ACB, Nagpur (learned Judge of the trial court) in Special (ACB) Case No.04/2010 whereby he is convicted for offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

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

Complainant Mohd.Akram s/o Mehmood Ahmad, a resident of Nagpur, was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code registered with the Koradi Police Station, Nagpur on an allegation that he was doing construction work of Asharfiya Mosque and one of workers died due to electric shock and, therefore, he committed the offence under the said Section. Regarding the said crime, Sessions Trial No.63/2008 was pending against him in the court of learned Adhoc District Judge, Court No.8, Nagpur.

3. The accused was working as Junior Clerk in the said court. The evidence of the prosecution was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 21.3.2009. A week prior to that, he allegedly demanded Rs.35,000/- in order to get acquittal of the complainant of the said case. As per allegation, he assured the complainant that he will manage the Presiding Officer and he exchanged his mobile number with the complainant. He and the complainant had conversations on eight to ten occasions and during that conversations, the complainant requested him to reduce the amount. After negotiation, he told the complainant that he has to pay amount Rs.25,000/-, else his work will not be done. On 19.3.2009, the complainant made a phone call to him and informed him that he is unable to pay this much amount. On that, the accused asked to pay Rs.10,000/-. On the next date, i.e. 20.3.2009, between 3:00 to 4:00 pm, the complainant was called by the accused in the court’s canteen and also asked him to pay the remaining amount after 3-4 days. As the complainant was not desiring to pay the amount, on 20.3.2009 he approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Nagpur and lodged a report.

4. After receipt of the complaint, officials of the bureau called two panchas. The complaint was read over to panchas and they have also perused the complaint. The complainant produced bribe amount of ten currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination. The demonstration as to phenolphthalein powder mixed with sodium carbonate was explained to them. After completing necessary formalities, pre-trap panchanama was drawn.

5. After the pre-trap panchanama, when the complainant and panchas and raiding party members were about to leave for the trap, the complainant received a call from the accused on his mobile. The call was kept on a speaker mode and conversation was heard. From the said conversation, it revealed to panchas and raiding party members that the accused is present at Joshi Juice Centre, near Sandipani School and waiting for the complainant and, therefore, asked the complainant as to when he is coming there. The complainant informed him that he will reach there within fifteen minutes. Accordingly, the complainant proceeded along with pancha No.1 on his motorcycle and pancha No.2 and other raiding party members followed them. The complainant and pancha No.1 met the accused. During communication, the accused asked about the bribe amount and accepted it. After receiving a predetermined signal, raiding party members along with the pancha reached and the accused was caught. Immediately, fingers of the accused and the complainant were dipped separately in a solution and the said solution was collected in separate bottles. The tainted amount was recovered from the accused. Accordingly, post-trap panchanama was drawn.

6. During investigation, the In