The court affirmed that the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, validating the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Kishore C. Sant, J.)

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Parbhani in Special Case No. 15 of 2000 dated 31.03.2004, the appellant original accused has approached this Court. He is held guilty of & convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay find of Rs. 1,000/-, I.D. to under go R.I. for 3 months for each of the offences. Sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution was initiated on a complaint filed by one Manik Shivram Perke PW-4 by Dy. S.P. (ACB) Parbhani prosecution case is that PW-1 Devidas Dukare, a defacto Complainant was working as Primary Teacher, he had approached the accused, Block Education Officer for his pay fixation. On 29.01.2000 he met the accused. On that day when requested, the accused told him that though on earlier occasion he had transferred the complainant as per his request still he has not given anything to the accused. If Complainant wants that his pay should be fixed as per 5th Pay Commission then he has to pay Rs. 1,000/-, otherwise the work would be done in routine manner. The Complainant, on that, requested to reduce the said amount. Accused told him to come on 31.01.2000 with Rs. 500/- and told to pay remaining amount of Rs. 500/- after the pay fixation is done. On this the Complainant lodged a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau on 31.01.2000. The Dy. S.P. ACB, on such complaint decided to lay a trap on 31.01.2000. The further case of the prosecution is that the trap became successful. The accused is caught red handed alongwith the amount of bribe. After obtaining sanction, the charge-sheet came to be filed and the accused was tried.

3. Learned Special Judge on trial held the accused guilty of the aforesaid offences and passed the judgment.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses. PW-1, de-facto Complainant, in his evidence stated about the earlier demand, laying of trap etc. About the actual incident he stated that he went in the office of accused alongwith pancha PW-2. He asked one lady sitting outside the room of the accused as to whether the accused is in the office. On making inquiry they both went in the room of the accused with his Service Book. Before going to the room he had asked another employee whether his pay fixation is done, on that it was informed that the said work is not done. On going in the room of the accused he asked as to whether his work is done, on that the accused asked as to whether the amount is brought as agreed. On saying that the Complainant has brought the amount, the accused asked as to whether the Complainant has paid the amount to one Katarde. The Complainant told that he has not paid the amount to Katarde but he would pay the amount directly to the accused. On that the accused demanded the amount of Rs. 500/-. The accused took the amount in his hand asking as to how much is the amount and counted the amount by both the hands and kept the same in left pocket of his pant and asked the Complainant to wait outside telling that he would come out of the room. The panch, however, stayed in the room of the accused. After coming out of the room this witness gave signal to the raiding party, on that the raiding party came in the room. After some time this Complainant was called inside the room. Pocket of his pant was examined under the ultra violate lamp, which shown traces of anthracene powder. On the hands of the Complainant also traces of powder were seen. He proved the complaint lodged by him on 31.01.2000.

5. In the cross-examination it was suggested that this witness was working as a Chairman of one association of the primary School of Teachers, which he denied and volunteered that he became the Chairman after the incident. He accepted that the clerk Katarde had told that the necessary entry for correct fixation is made in the servi