Judgment:
Oral Judgment:
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 4 of 1991 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (i) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the present appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts, in brief, are as under:
According to first informant Gunwant, he wanted to cut branches of trees standing on the boundary of his field. He went to the house of respondent/accused on 6.1.1990 who was, at the relevant time, working as Forest Guard. He gave oral permission to the complainant. Complainant engaged his cousin brother Vikram as a labour and after cutting, loaded the branches in a bullock cart. According to complainant, respondent-accused accosted the bullock cart on way and asked the complainant to take it to check post. At check-post, respondent/accused seized the teak wood and prepared seizure memo. When the complainant requested the respondent not to take further action, he demanded Rs. 400/- from him so that he will not take any action. Respondent/accused said that if Rs. 400/- are not given, FIR will be registered against the complainant. Complainant requested for one or two days time upon which accused gave him time upto 8.1.1990 (Monday).
4. After completing formalities of pre-trap etc., complainant and pancha witness no.1 went to the house of accused. Accused was sitting on a cot and he asked complainant and pancha witness to sit on cot. Accused enquired about pancha witness with complainant on which complainant revealed that it was his maternal brother, running a pan shop at Wardha. Accused asked the complainant whether he had brought money upon which complainant took out Rs. 400/- and gave it to respondent/accused. Respondent counted the currency notes by both hands and then said to the complainant that he was free to use wooden log. After receiving signal, trap was laid on the respondent/accused. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the respondent/accused before the Special Court.
5. Defence of the accused was that complainant was caught red-handed while stealing the forest property and on earlier occasion also, he had taken action against him for similar theft and, therefore, complainant and his family members were harbouring grudge against him. According to him, on 8.1.1990 when he was playing with his daughter in the evening, complainant came and all of a sudden, put some currency notes in her hands. Accused obtained those notes from the hands of his daughter and gave call to the complainant saying that he did not want money, but in the meantime, he was caught by raiding party. Accused thus claimed innocence.
6. Learned Special Judge after going through the evidence and hearing the parties, acquitted the respondent/accused of the offences with which he was charged.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Special Judge erred in scrutinising the evidence on record and considering the evidence of hostile witnesses in support of the respondent/accused. According to him, evidence of P. W. 3 who was independent witness, was adequate enough to punish the accused since traces of phenolphthalein powder. He prayed that appeal be allowed and finding of acquittal be converted into a finding of conviction.
8. Mr Sumit Joshi, learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae supported the impugned finding of acquittal.
9. On perusal of the proceedings before the Special Judge, I find that complainant Waskar and alleged eye witness PW 5 Vikram did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Complainant admitted in his evidence that currency notes were put in the hands of child (daughter of respondent/accused) and the same were not given to the accused. He deposed that when he went to the house of accused, pancha witness no. 1 remained outside. After he was declared hostile, complainant was subjected to cross-examination, but during cross-examination also, nothing material could be elicited to prove the guilt of the accused.
10. PW 2 Sathe who accorded sanction, deposed that he gave sanction as per draft order produced before him and he thought that there was no option for him but to accord sanction. Thus, the sanction accorded in this case does not appear to have been given after applying mind and after subjective satisfaction by the sanctioning authority.
11. On overall reading of the evidence, neither demand nor acceptance in this case has been established by the prosecution. Learned Special Judge has, in thorough detail, noted the discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence. Learned Special Judge has rightly noted that the evidence led on record by the prosecution is not clinching and it is very weak. Hence, finding recorded by the learned Special Judge needs no interference and the State appeal will have to be dismissed.
12. In the result, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Fees for learned amicus curiae are quantified at Rs. 2000/- to be paid by the Legal Services, Sub-committee at Nagpur.