The trial's fairness was compromised by leading questions during witness testimonies, resulting in unreliability of evidence and overturning the conviction of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. Both these Appeals are decided by this common Judgment today because they arise out of a common Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Thane, on 16.04.2011, in Special Case No.17 of 2006. The Appellant Diksha Dhande in Criminal Appeal No.437 of 2011 was the original Accused No.1 and the Respondent Chahu Mhatre in Criminal Appeal No.1319 of 2011 was the original Accused No.2. For the sake of convenience, both of them are referred to by their original status as the accused before the trial Court.

2. The learned Trial Judge convicted the Accused No.1 Diksha for commission of the offence punishable U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’) and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for two months. She was also convicted for commission of the offence punishable U/s.13(1)(d) r/w. S.13(2) of the P.C.Act and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for two months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The Accused No.2 Chahu was acquitted from the charges of commission of the offence punishable U/s.12 of the P.C.Act.

4. The Criminal Appeal No.437 of 2011 is preferred by the accused No.1 Diksha against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.1319 of 2011 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded in favour of the Accused No.2 Chahu.

5. Heard Mr. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.437 of 2011, Mr. Pankaj Devkar, learned APP for State/Respondent in Criminal Appeal No.437 of 2011 and for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1319 of 2011, and Mr. Dushyant Pagare, learned counsel for Respondent in Criminal Appeal No.1319 of 2011.

6. The prosecution case is that the Accused No.1 Diksha was working as a Senior Clerk and Tax Inspector in the Administration department at Turbhe, ‘D’ division, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short ‘NMMC’) and the Accused No.2 Chahu was working as a peon in the same office. One Manoj Chaurasiya had purchased a room in Turbhe area. He wanted the NMMC to update the record in his capacity as the purchaser of that room. As per the prosecution case, the Accused No.1 Diksha initially demanded Rs.5000/- for doing that work, but settled and agreed for accepting Rs.3000/-. The said Manoj Chaurasiya had given an authority letter to the complainant in this case Mr. Annappa Ragi to do this work. The complainant Annappa Ragi did not want to pay the bribe amount of Rs.3000/- to the Accused and, therefore, they approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ‘ACB’). The complainant Annappa gave his complaint. The officers of the ACB called two panchas. One of them was sent with the complainant for the verification of the demand made by the Accused No.1. They went to her office on 06.09.2005. She again demanded the amount of Rs.3000/-. The verification panchanama was recorded. The officers arranged to lay a trap on 08.09.2005. On that day, the complainant had brought an amount of Rs.3000/-. The anthracene powder was smeared on the currency notes. The complainant and the panchas were given demonstration of the effect of the anthracene powder. The pre-trap panchanama was conducted. After that, the complainant and one of the panchas went to the office of the Accused No.1. She gave the file of their work