The appellate court can reverse an acquittal if evidence of bribery and the demand for illegal payments is established beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that both parties bear the burden in a plea of alibi.

JUDGMENT :

Neela Gokhale, J.

1. This Appeal assails the Judgment and Order dated 2^nd September, 2008, passed by the Special Judge at Baramati, District Pune, acquitting the Respondents herein (Original Accused Nos.1 and 2) from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') and acquitting the Respondent No.3 (Original Accused No.3) from the offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act.

2. By an order dated 18^th June 2009, this Court, by a reasoned order opined that a triable issue was made out by the Appellant-State of Maharashtra, to be dealt with in this Appeal, to ascertain the correctness and legality of the impugned Judgment and Order. Hence, this Court allowed the Leave Petition and admitted the Appeal.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

3.1 The Respondent No. 1/Accused No.1 (A/1) was a Tahsildar posted at Indapur. The Accused No.2/Respondent No.2 (A/2) was working as a clerk in the Tahsildar's office, and the Accused No.3/Respondent No.3 (A/3) was another person in the office of the Tahsildar.

3.2 The Informant's father died on 19^th June 2005 and he thus, made an application before the Talathi, seeking to enter the names of his father’s legal heirs on the revenue records of the agricultural land owned by his father. The Talathi carried out the mutation entry. The same was challenged by one Vijay Gulumkar, a cousin brother of the Informant. Hence, the Application was forwarded to the A/1 for decision. Notices were issued to the parties calling upon them to appear before the Tahsildar on 31^st October 2005. Written statements were submitted, and the matter was closed for orders.

3.3 On 22^nd December 2007, the Informant (PW/1) went to the office of the Tahsildar to enquire about the pending case. The Tahsildar demanded Rs.3,000/- in lieu of clearing the file and passing an order in favour of the Informant. The Informant indicated his inability to pay the said amount prompting the Tahsildar to reduce the demand to Rs.1,000/-. The Informant met A/2 who also conveyed the demand of ‘Saheb’ to him. Again at 05:00 pm. on the same date, the Informant met the Tahsildar and his clerk in his office, who asked him as to whether he had brought the amount with him. They told him that he should pay the money and collect the order. The Informant assured the A/1 and A/2 that he will come on the following day with his brother and bring the money.

3.4 The Informant then, made a complaint with the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Pune ('ACB') on 28^th December 2005, (Exhibit-30) narrating the demand of the A/1 and A/2. The ACB Pune laid a trap on the same day. The amount of Rs.1,000/- (10 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination) was taken from the Informant and the numbers of the currency notes were noted; anthracene powder was applied on the currency notes on both sides; and these notes were returned to the Informant to be given to A/1 - Tahsildar. A pre-trap panchanama was recorded (Ex.33). One panch, Shri Ganesh Krishna Chillal (PW/2) accompanied the Informant in the office of the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar informed him that a copy of the order was sent to the Talathi and also inquired about the bribe money. On the instructions of the Tahsildar, the Informant met A/2 - clerk who pointed to the A/3, namely Shrikant Gaikwad, who accepted the money on behalf of the A/1. Two copies of the order were handed over to the Informant. After paying the money to A/3, the Informant signaled the officers as per their instructions and he came out of the room. The pancha accompanying the Info