IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that both demand and acceptance of bribes must be proven for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the need for reliable evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S. M. Modak, J.

1. Constitutional bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Dutta v/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 280 held “in a case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act the Court can base its conviction on circumstantial evidence, even though direct evidence is not available”. So to say, if for any reason, the de-facto Complainant is not available for giving evidence, Court can certainly look for circumstantial evidence. It may be in the form of evidence of trap witness or any other witness. The de-facto Complainant may be dead or not available or has not supported the prosecution case. The reference was made to larger bench in view of divergence of opinion amongst various benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After taking conspectus of the decision, certain principles were laid down. Following are relevant for our consideration:-

(a) Proof of demand and acceptance is sine qua non[An essential condition.] for an offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[Henceforth, “the PC Act”].

(b) First demand has to be proved and then subsequent acceptance has to be proved.

(c) Demand and acceptance can be proved by direct oral evidence and in absence – by circumstantial evidence.

(d) If illegal gratification is paid without earlier demand, it is a case of acceptance under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(e) If there is a demand and then acceptance, it is a case of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(f) Presumption under Section 20 can be drawn only when foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved.

(g) Even if the Complainant dies, not available or turned hostile, offence can be proved by examining other witnesses or by circumstantial evidence or through documents.

2. According to learned APP in this case, even though the de-facto Complainant has turned hostile, still there is evidence of PW No. 2- panch witness and it is sufficient. According to him, the trial Court, while acquitting the Respondent, has not at all referred the evidence of panch witness. And this is total dereliction of duty. He is right.

3. I have read the impugned judgment. Nowhere the trial Court has commented on the evidence of panch witness. It is true when the trial Court passed the impugned judgment, the observations in Neeraj Dutta (cited supra) were not in force. But it does not mean that, the trial Court should overlook a piece of evidence.

4. In such cases, the panch witness has an important role to play. Generally raids are conducted in the presence of independent witness. Trial Court has failed to consider this evidence. Does it mean that the matter should be remanded ? According to learned Advocate Mr.Rananaware, this Court being last fact finding court can consider evidence of panch witness and even if considered, it will not result into reversal of the judgment.

5. The prosecution case needs to be stated.

Prosecution case

6. The de-facto Complainant Mahendra Gujar resident of village- Bhondavade, District – Satara owns a tempo. He purchased it from one Raghurath Nikam. Yet Shri Gujar has not paid the entire consideration and that is why it is not transferred in his name. Shri.Gujar has appointed Shri.Raghunath Shinde to drive the tempo.

7. The corruption offence is outcome of plying the tempo in limits of Borgaon Police Station and carrying passengers. The driver Shinde was obstructed by Police constable Zanjurne on the instructions of Police Head Constable Shri Sandbhor. Neither of them were charge-sheeted. Shri Gujar went to Borgaon Police Station on 29/03/1995 and met head constable Sandbhor. Mr.Sandbhor first took Mr. Gujar to task and pressurized him to pay instantly Rs. 1,000/-. This is the first demand. But unfortunately, Shri.Sandbhor though named as an accused in FIR dated 30/04/1995 (filed by PI Mane after the trap), was dropped from the charge-sheet.

8. Mr.Gujar was he