IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Illegal gratification – Mere recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand would not be sufficient to prove offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2) Complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars has to be insisted upon.
(3) Appeal against acquittal – Correctness or otherwise of any conclusion reached by court has to be tested on the basis of what superior judicial authority perceives to be correct conclusion.

JUDGMENT

Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.—By this appeal, the appellant (the State) has challenged judgment and order dated 27.4.2019 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Chandrapur (learned Judge of the trial court) in Special (ACB Case No.1/2006) whereby the respondent (the accused) is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, complainant Manohar Domaji Kaurase, was residing at Gadchandur. In the year 1994, he purchased a plot admeasuring 4018 square meters in Deshpande layout at Gadchandur. He also paid property tax in the year 2002. On 20.1.2005, he moved an application in the office of Talathi for obtaining 7/12 extract. At the relevant time, the accused was serving as Talathi. The complainant requested the accused for issuing 7/12 extract and the accused asked him to visit after 10 days as his application was not filed along with index. On 8.6.2005, the complainant again met the accused. At the relevant time, as per allegation, the accused demanded Rs.1700/- and after a negotiation, shown his readiness to accept Rs.1500/-. The accused further informed him that the property tax of that year would be adjusted in the amount of Rs.1500/- and asked him to come on 10.6.2005. As the complainant was not desiring to give the payment, he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau at Chandrapur (the office of the bureau) and lodged a complaint.

3. After receipt of the complaint, officer of the bureau called two panchas and decided to lay a trap. Accordingly, formalities of pre-trap panchanama was carried out. The complainant had produced three currencies of Rs.500/-. The demonstration as to phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was shown. After applying the said solution on the said notes, the notes were kept in shirt pocket of the complainant. Necessary instructions were given to the complainant as well as panchas and, thereafter, the complainant and pancha No.1 proceeded towards the office of the accused. During communication, the accused prepared receipt of Rs.344/- and, thereafter, made a gesture by his right hand asking money and the complainant handed over the amount to him. On giving a signal, trap officer and other raiding party members caught the accused. The amount was seized from the accused. Accordingly, post-trap panchanama was drawn. The accused was arrested. The articles seized were forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused.

4. Learned Judge of the trial court framed against the accused vide Exhibit-9. In support of the prosecution case, the the prosecution examined in all five witnesses namely Manohar Domaji Kaurase vide Exhibit-25 (PW1), the complainant; Shrikant Daiwalkar vide Exhibit-43 (PW2), the shadow pancha; Charandas Namdeorao Selokar vide Exhibit-52 (PW3), pancha No.2; Vinod Karkande vide Exhibit-59 (PW4), the Sanctioning Authority; and Dinkar Asaram Thosare vide Exhibit-64 (PW5), the Trap Officer.

5. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed reliance on the complaint Exhibit-26, Village Form- 9A Exhibit-29, application by the complainant for 7/12 extract Exhibit-33, certified copy of index Exhibit-34, extract of register of mutation Exhibits-35 to 40, pre-trap panchanama, Exhibit-45, seizure memos Exhibits-46 and 47, map Exhibit-48, seizure memo Exhibit-53, sanction order Exhibit-61, report Exhibit-84, First Information Report Exhibit-85, and letter to Chemical Analyzer Exhibit-88.

6. After considering the evidence adduced during the trial, learned Judge of the trial court observed that there was no valid sanction as well as the evidence as to the demand, which is sine qua non, is not established by the prosecution and acquitted the accused.

7. Being aggrieved with the same, the present appeal is preferred by the State on ground that learned Judge of the trial court failed to observe that