In assessing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere inquiries about bribe amounts do not equate to a legal demand, and evidence must be compelling to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

M. M. Nerlikar, J.

Heard.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge Warora in Special (ACB) Case No. 11/2008, wherein the accused i.e. present respondent is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).

3. The prosecution case in brief appears to be:-

The complainant Shri Ashok Kathane intending to relinquish his rights in favour of his son qua his shop property vide a gift deed applied for mutation in favour of his son in the Office of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Chimur on 20.02.2003. At the relevant time, the present respondent was working as Head Quarter Assistant, demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification for mutation entry but the complainant unable to pay the said amount and asked to reduce the amount to Rs.200/-. However, the accused/present respondent was persistent in his demand of Rs.2000/-. Again, on 09.07.2003, when the complainant went to respondent’s office, same demand was made, to which the complainant agreed. As the complainant had no intention to give bribe to the present respondent, he visited the Office of Anti-Corruption Bureau, ('ACB' ) Chandrapur. The complainant made oral complaint in ACB Office which was reduced in writing by Shri Choudhari, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB on 21.07.2003. The ACB Officer called two persons to act as 'Panchas'. The complainant’s complaint was read by the two 'panchas' and thereafter both the 'panchas' affixed their signatures on the said complaint. After preparing the Pre-Trap Panchnama, the raiding party proceeded to the Office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records. The present respondent demanded the bribe amount from the complainant which was handed over to the respondent. On giving the pre-fixed signal, the raiding party conducted the raid. The tainted notes were found on the person of the accused in his shirt pocket. Thereafter, a detailed Panchnama was prepared and the shirt of the present respondent was also seized. After examination, the shirt pocket of the present respondent as also the currency notes seized from him, turned violet in colour due to sodium carbonate solution being sprinkled on the tainted currency notes. Accordingly, Seizure Memos were duly recorded.

After completing investigation by the Investigating Officer, charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondent. The learned Trial Court framed charge vide Exh-4. The same was read over and explained to the accused/respondent in vernacular language. The present respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused whereas, the respondent did not examine any witness in his defence.

The learned Trial Court upon hearing both the parties was pleased to acquit the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. The learned APP submits that, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses. PW-1 is the complainant who has lodged the complaint (Exh.18) with the ACB Office. PW-2 is Sanjay Bhaurao Wankhede Panch No.1 to the demand. PW-3 Vijay Ashokrao Kathane is son of the complainant. PW-4 Pandit Ramji Kanekar is the Sanctioning Authority and PW-5 Purushottam Ramrao Choudhary is the Investigating Officer who has registered the FIR (Exh.72) and also conducted the investigation. The learned APP submits that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. All the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and accordingly, the demand and acceptance was duly proved by the prosecution. He submits that in the cross-examination of the witnesses, nothing was brought on record, to draw an adverse inference. The testimonies of the witnesses were not shaken or