The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in testimony may lead to acquittal, as reasonable doubt undermines the credibility of the case.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. Nerlikar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

2. The complainant, Ramesh Nanaji Belekar, had applied for voluntary retirement (VRS) in May, 2004. The accused, a public servant handling VRS-related work, allegedly demanded Rs.4,000/- from the complainant for facilitating his VRS, gratuity, and provident fund (PF) claims. Owing to his financial condition, the complainant initially expressed inability to pay. After the complainant received Rs.1,00,000/- towards gratuity, Rs.2,36,000/- towards VRS, and approximately Rs.2,50,000/- towards PF between September and October 2004, the accused allegedly renewed his demand. On 02/11/2004, the accused allegedly threatened that non- payment would create obstacles in release of PF. He ultimately reduced the demand to Rs.3,500/-, asking the complainant to pay on 03/11/2004 at his residence.

3. Unwilling to pay bribe, the complainant approached the C.B.I. and lodged a written complaint. A trap was arranged on 03/11/2004. Phenolphthalein-treated currency notes totalling Rs.3,500/- were handed to the complainant during the pre-trap proceedings. At about 8.30–8.45 a.m., the accused allegedly arrived at the complainant’s residence, reiterated the demand, and accepted the tainted money with his right hand, placing it in his shirt pocket. On receipt of the pre-determined signal, the trap team apprehended the accused. Sodium- carbonate tests showed positive reaction on the accused’s right- hand fingers and on the inner pocket of his shirt. The tainted notes recovered from his pocket tallied with the pre-trap memorandum. Post-trap panchanama was drawn, and after completion of investigation and grant of sanction, charge-sheet was filed. The trial Court has framed charge at Exh. 3 against the accused for the offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”). The accused denied the allegations, asserting that the amount received represented repayment of a private hand loan and that the complaint was false.

4. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, while the defence has examined 1 witness. After appreciating the evidence the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for an offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, the demand and acceptance. He further submits that the accused was caught red-handed by recovering tainted currency notes. He further submits that there was demand of Rs.3,500/-, and the panchanama was drawn to that effect. There is nothing in the cross-examination to shatter the case of prosecution, though elaborately cross-examination was taken by the defence. He further submits that P.W.-1 has specifically deposed about the entire incident. The demand was made from the very inception, when P.W.-1, the complainant, has filed an application for VRS. There were consistent demands by the accused, and therefore, as a last resort, he agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/-, after settlement. On 02/11/2004, the complainant lodged a complaint with the CBI, which was accordingly reduced into writing and is recorded at Exh.-16. There was a specific demand of Rs.3,500/- by the accused for sanctioning pension amount of the complainant and it has specifically come in the evidence of P.W.-1 that accused has initially demanded Rs.4,000/-, but after settlement, he agreed for Rs.3,500/-, reducing