In corruption cases, the prosecution must prove demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and any mechanical sanction without proper authority is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

1. Convict appellant Narayan is challenging judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Osmanabad, dated 11-04-2005 in Special Case No.6 of 2001 recording guilt of appellant for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

FACTS LEADING TO THE TRIAL

2. Complainant PW1 Suresh, who was a beneficiary of award on account of acquisition of his land, was due to receive cheque. To complete the formalities, he approached Treasury Office. Appellant, a clerk, posted therein was approached on 09-02-2001 by complainant and requested to issue necessary certificate for encashment of cheque. Complainant conveyed urgency. However, appellant, to do it with priority, demanded Rs.500/-. Complainant himself, being a Police Officer, was against giving bribe and therefore, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities and lodged report exh.14.

PW4 Kalidas Shankarrao Suryawanshi (Dy.S.P.), ACB Officer, noted the report, planned trap by engaging panchas. Entire procedure was explained and demonstrated with specific instructions to complainant to pay amount on demand. Accordingly, on 09-02-2001, at around 04:00 p.m., when complainant was accompanied by PW3 Ram Mahadeo Narule, accused put up demand and accepted tainted currency. Necessary signal was relayed by complainant and raid was executed.

After investigation, appellant was tried by Special Judge, Osmanabad vide Special Case No.6 of 2001 and guilt was recorded for aforesaid offence by rendering judgment. Hence, instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant :

3. Learned Counsel for appellant criticized and questioned the impugned judgment by submitting that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He took this Court through the evidence of PW1 Suresh, complainant and emphasized that there is deliberate entrapment because ego of complainant was hurt while interacting with appellant. Learned Counsel emphasized that in this case, complaint is not noted by PW4 Investigating Officer, rather admittedly it is recorded by subordinate of the Investigating Officer namely Mane (PHC), but such person is not examined and therefore, learned Counsel questions the authenticity and credibility of accusations. That evidence of complainant itself demonstrates his such attitude.

4. He pointed out that, it is fairly settled law that in cases of such nature, complainant being interested witness, law requires sufficient corroboration before or accepting complainant’s version. Learned Counsel emphatically submitted that in the case in hand, complainant was accompanied by his nephew Dhananjay during visit to the Office of appellant. However, such important witness has not been examined by prosecution to support complainant’s version. Therefore, it is his submission that sole testimony of complainant regarding demand of gratification cannot be straightaway accepted. On this count, learned Counsel seeks reliance on the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of AP [(2014) 4 S.C.R. 554].

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that even otherwise there is no direct demand of illegal gratification and there is mere allegation of conversation as to whether amount is brought. According to learned Counsel, such version is ambiguous in nature and no specific meaning could be attributed to such version. That moreover, testimony of complainant is not fully supported by PW3 shadow pancha as according to learned Counsel, he was not present when there were talks going on between complainant and accused in the passage, outside the cabin of Treasury Officer. He further elaborated that complainant in cross-examination himself admitted in paragraph 23 that there were no talks between himself and accused. Thus, according to learned Counsel, evidence of complainant itself is unworthy of credence. On this point, he seeks reliance on the case of Ashok Kumar Bhagchand Wardhani v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 88 (Nagpur Bench)