A conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, supporting the principle that the accused is entitled to benefit from any reasonable doubt.

1. Heard.

2. The appellant/accused has challenged the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as the appellant is convicted in Special Case No.5/1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the said Act and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) of the said Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, the appellant/accused is Gram Sewak/clerk in Grampanchayat, Palasgaon. The complainant was in need of resolution of Grampanchayat, Palasgaon, therefore, he went there and applied for the certified copy of the said resolution. The appellant/accused asked him to come on 10.09.1993. On 10.09.1993, the appellant/accused asked him to pay an amount of Rs.205/-. When the complainant asked him about the charges, he told him that Rs.5/- for supply of the copy and esgurkuk Rs.200/- for his labour ( ). When he demanded Rs.200/- extra, the complainant asked him to give him some time to pay Rs.200/-. Therefore, the appellant/accused asked him to come on 13.09.1993 with Rs.205/-. On 13.09.1993 the complainant went to his office, at that time also he asked him to pay Rs.205/-. That time he gave Rs.5/- to the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused asked him for the amount of Rs.200/- and stated that he will not supply the copy of resolution unless he paid the amount of Rs.200/-. Therefore, the complainant asked him for some time. The appellant/accused asked him to come on 15.09.1993 at Grampanchayat. On 15.09.1993 he could not contact the accused. Therefore, on 16.09.1993 the complainant went to the house of the appellant/accused and again accused asked him for Rs.200/-. The complainant told him that he is not having said amount. Though the accused was having the copy of resolution, he asked him to come on 17.09.1993 with Rs.200/-. The informant had agreed to pay the amount and he went to Anti Corruption Bureau office and lodged the complaint.

4. On the complaint lodged by the complainant, the panch witnesses were called and trap was arranged. It was decided that after demand and after acceptance of the amount, the complainant will move the handkerchief on his face and then raiding party will reach there and caught the accused. Accordingly, the panch witnesses along with complainant went to the house of the accused. Initially, the accused was not at home.Thereafter, they wait for him outside the house. After some time, accused came there. Thereafter, he went there and the accused has accepted the amount. After acceptance of the amount he gave signal to the raiding party and the raiding party entered the house and seized the amount which was given by the complainant and was applied with the phenolphthalein powder. The amount was seized from the kitchen platform from the house of the accused. Thereafter, the crime was registered and the accused was arrested. The seizure panchanama was conducted and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

5. The prosecution had examined total seven witnesses they are PW-1 the first informant, PW-2 the Panch witness, PW-3 is the constable, who has registered the complaint, PW-4 is carrier of Muddemal to C.A., PW-5 is the Sanctioning Authority, PW-6 is the carrier who brought the Muddemal from C.A. and PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. The defence has examined one witness i.e. wife of the accused.

6. The complainant had depose