A valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires the Sanctioning Authority to apply its mind to all relevant facts, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGEMENT :

[MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]

1. Heard Ms. Phad, learned APP for Appellant – State and Mr. Killedar, learned Advocate for Respondent – original Accused.

2. This Appeal arises out of judgement and order dated 08.03.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Solapur in Special (ACB) Case No.1 of 2002, wherein Accused – Respondent was tried for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the said Act’) and on conclusion of trial acquitted for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved, State of Maharashtra has filed present Criminal Appeal against acquittal on 25.06.2004. On 16.06.2012, Appeal was admitted. It was heard for final hearing on 28.11.2024 and 12.12.2024.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the Appeal are as follows:-

3.1. Respondent-Accused was working as Extension Officer in the year 2000-2001 in the office of Panchayat Samiti Kurduwadi, Taluka Madha, District – Solapur. Complainant Shri. Maruti Padule was working as Assistant Junior Engineer attached to Panchayat Samiti, Kurduwadi. Complainant was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Karmala. It is Complainant’s case that he was sent on deputation back to Kurduwadi by order dated 19.08.2000 to complete pending works which had remained incomplete. According to Complainant by letter dated 24.08.2000, he requested the Block Development Officer, Kurduwadi (for short ‘BDO’) to furnish pending works papers for completing arrears of work. Thereafter, as per complainant, he completed all pending works by 04.01.2001 and requested the Respondent – Accused to give Completion Certificate to him along with relieving letter. He requested Respondent to forward his Leave Pay Certificate (for short ‘LPC’) and service record of completion of works since he had not drawn his salary during that period, which would enable him to draw the same. As per Complainant BDO, Kurduwadi directed him to approach Respondent and obtain Clearance of work Certificate from him after his verification. On 12.01.2001, he met Respondent and requested him to submit report of completion of work when Respondent demanded Rs.25,000/- bribe from him for issuing his Completion Certificate. As per Complainant, he met Respondent on 16.01.2001 and also on 18.01.2001 with the same request and demand for Rs.25,000/- was once again made by Respondent on both dates.

3.2. As per Complainant, he expressed his inability to pay the said bribe amount, but after negotiation Respondent agreed on the amount of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter on 30.01.2001, Complainant met BDO, Mr. Shivaji Pawar and requested him to relieve him. BDO once again asked him to meet Respondent and obtain Completion Certificate. Complainant immediately met Respondent on the same day, but Respondent demanded Rs.15,000/- from him to issue his Completion Certificate. Thereafter Complainant met Respondent on 07.02.2001 and repeated his request when he was informed to meet him on the next day i.e. on 08.02.2001 and pay Rs.5,000/- and was told to pay balance amount of Rs.10,000/- on the following Monday.

3.3. On 07.02.2001, Complainant filed complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ‘ACB’) Office in Solapur. After completing legal formalities, Complainant was called to ACB Office on 08.02.2001 and was asked to bring along with him currency notes of Rs.5,000/- denominations. Independent panch witness was called to the ACB Office on 08.02.2001. Before meeting Respondent, pre-trap panchnama was recorded in the ACB Office in the presence of panch witness. It recorded that Complainant carried alongwith him an amount of Rs.5,000/- (marked currency) comprising of 50 notes in denomination of Rs.100/- and Rs.750/- in cash separately.

3.4. As per Complainant, he thereafter met Respondent in his Office on 08.02.2001 when Respondent inquired whether he had brought Rs.5,000/- and asked him to meet him at the nearby canteen called ‘Sachin Uphar Griha’. Complainant and Respondent met in the canteen after 5:30 pm where the tr