Actual proof of demand for bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money without established demand is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.)

1. The appellant / State has challenged the judgment and order dated 20/04/2005, passed by the learned Special Judge (P. C.), Aurangabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial court’] in Special Case No.11 of 2002, whereby the present respondent i.e. original accused Ginandeo Mahadu Bagul, has been acquitted from offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’).

2. According to the complainant Bajirao Kakde (PW-1), he was a resident of village Ghatambri. He purchased one field in Gut No.60 in the name of his wife. He was taking water from the field of Suryabhan Giri i.e. Gut No.61. One Yusuf Ismail was the owner of adjoining land. On 09/11/2001 there was a scuffle between Suryabhan and his wife with Yusuf Ismail, his wife and mother. Yusuf Ismail and others threatened Suryabhan of dire consequences if the complainant passes through their field. Complainant Bajirao had already lodged report against Yusuf Ismail and his family members in Ajintha police station.

3. Thereafter, on 02/01/2002 the present respondent / accused called Bajirao in the police station. At that time, the respondent / accused threatened Bajirao for arresting him and filing chapter proceeding against him as he was responsible for the dispute between Suryabhan and Yusuf Ismail. The respondent / accused demanded bribe of Rs.500/- from Bajirao for not to be prosecuted or arrested. The complainant Bajirao then unwillingly agreed for payment of Rs.200/- after 2-3 days. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a report with Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, who set up a trap and caught the respondent / accused alongwith the bribe amount. The learned trial court after conducting the trial, acquitted the respondent / accused from the aforesaid offences. As such, this appeal.

4. The learned APP strongly submitted that the prosecution has established demand of bribe and its acceptance by the accused. Further, according to him, the complainant and panch No.1 – Aouchit Gadekar (PW-2) have corroborated each other on material aspects and therefore, the learned trial court should have convicted the respondent / accused.

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent / accused vehemently argued that there was no complaint against the complainant Bajirao and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent / accused for arresting him or filing a chapter case against him. He pointed out that the very genesis of the case is doubtful since there was no verification of demand. Moreover, there are contradictions in the evidence of complainant as well as panch witness- Gadekar. She pointed out that the complainant himself admitted in the cross-examination that the respondent / accused had not demanded any bribe amount in the first visit. Further, she also pointed out that the investigating officer admitted in the cross-examination that the complainant or panch witness never entered into the room wherein the bribe amount was allegedly given to the respondent / accused. She relied on following judgments :

A) State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153;

B) Ashok Kumar Bhagchand Wardhani vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 131 and

C) P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2015) 10 SCC 151.

6. Heard rival submissions. Also perused the entire record and proceedings alongwith the impugned judgment. Also considered the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent / accused.

7. On going through the evidence of complainant Bajirao it is evident that prosecution is claiming that respondent / accused demanded amount of bribe from the complainant for not to arrest him in connection with dispute between Suryabhan and Yusuf Ismail. However, it is not in dispute that no complaint was pending against the complainant in the police station of respondent / accused. On the contrary, i