:-
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.03.1999, passed by the learned Special Judge, Beed, in Special Case No.55 of 1991 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- I/D R.I. for nine months. The appellant-accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- I/D to suffer R.I. for one year.
2 The prosecution case, in brief, is as under;-
The complainant Laxman Vishnu Are is a Kotwal. 15 days prior to the incident in question i.e. one Sunday evening the persons viz. Rajabhau Kale, Hanumant Shinde, Kacharu Kadam in all 6-7 had assaulted the complainant's mother, wife and 2 sons. At that time, the complainant was near Hanuman temple. Complainant's son Rajabhau went to police station on the same day and lodged a complaint. Complainant's son told him that Head constable Chauhan did not take down the names of all assailants. Hence on the next day complainant gave application to D.S.P. Office Beed, Tahsildar Beed and P.S.I. Pimpalner police station. The complainant mentioned the names of all accused persons. On the next day i.e. on Tuesday the complainant met head constable Chauhan at Beed near Kala Hanuman Thane police chowki. At that time, complainant's son Pandurang was with him. At same time head constable Chauhan and one constable with him were in civil dresses. Head Constable Chauhan told Kotwal that they are under arrest. Thereafter, complainant told him that he has to take his salary from Tahsil Office. Thereafter Head Constable Chauhan took Pandurang on his motorcycle with him and went away. On the next day i.e. on Wednesday after the arrest of Pandurang he was produced by Head constable Chauhan before Tahsildar, Beed. The complainant halted till 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. He furnished bail for his son. At that time also Head constable Chauhan told the complainant that the complainant and his two sons are yet to be arrested. Head constable Chauhan asked them to come to the police station. Thereupon, the complainant told him that it is too late. The complainant assured head constable Chauhan that they will come to Pimpalner police station on the next day morning. Thereafter, head constable Chauhan asked them to come early.
3. Thereafter on Thursday morning at 11.00 a.m. the complainant met head constable Chauhan in the Pimpalner police station. At that time, surety Vishwanath Jagannath Yeserkar, both the sons of the complainant and the complainant having 7x12 extract with them had been to the police station. Thereafter, head constable Chauhan took the complainant aside. Head constable Chauhan told the complainant that Rs.500/- will be required for bail of three persons i.e. complainant and his two sons. Thereupon, the complainant told that he has no money. Head constable Chauhan then told the complainant that all three will have to go to jail. He further told the complainant that surety would be sent to Beed Court only. Thereafter, the complainant requested head constable Chauhan that he should not do such injustice. Thereupon Head Constable Chauhan asked to pay at least Rs.400/-. Thereafter, the complainant told Head Constable Chauhan that in fact he has no money with him. Head Constable Chauhan told the complainant that he will give bail to all three persons but he will have to give Rs.400/- personally. Thereafter the complainant unwillingly agreed. Head constable Chauhan took surety and complainant's two sons aside. He noted down their names and ages and released them on bail. He obtained signature of surety. Head Constable Chauhan told that there is no necessity of the 7x12 extract. After furnishing surety when the complainant was going out of the police station at 2.00 p.m. head constable again told him that they should halt there only.
4. He added that they will have to be sent to Tahsil Court, Beed on the next day. Hence, on the next day complainant again went to the police station at noon. Head constable Chauhan gave one constable with the complainant and sent him to Tahsildar Beed. There, the complainant was given date as 14.1.1991. The complainant met Hawaldar Chauhan in the Pimpalner police station on Thursday at 5.00 p.m. He told head constable Chauhan that he had brought Rs.100/- only. Head Constable Chauhan took Rs.100/- from him and told the complainant to bring balance of Rs.300/- on Saturday in the market of Nathapur without fail. Thereafter he went to police station on 12.1.1991 and reported to Anti Corruption Bureau that the Head Constable Chauhan is going to accept Rs.300/- from him and that he is not inclined to offer the bribe to Head Constable Chauhan. He also pointed out to the Anti Corruption Bureau that neither himself nor family members from his house has to pay private dues or Government due. The complainant had brought Rs.300/- with him and lodged the complaint. The said complaint was read over to complainant. The State complainant viz. Vikas Murlidhar Kohak, Police Inspector of Anti Corruption Bureau, Beed recorded the complaint of Laxman Vishnu Are on 12.1.1991 as per Exh.16.
5. Thereafter, State complainant arranged a trap. He made requisition to Executive Engineer Irrigation Department, Beed for sending two Government employees as panch witness. State complainant also asked Irrigation Department to make the Government vehicle available. Accordingly, this letter was given on 11.1.1991 on which date complainant Laxman had contacted State complainant Kohak. Accordingly, on 11.1.1991 at 5.00 p.m. panchas were asked by the State complainant to come on 12.1.1991 morning. Thereafter he contacted Anti Corruption Bureau Aurangabad and requested assistance of one police Inspector and one constable for help by wireless message. After arrival of panchas, police Inspector introduced himself. They agreed to act as panch in the trap case. Thereafter, P.I. Kohak introduced his staff to panchas. Thereafter, panchas went away. On 12.1.1991 morning above mentioned both panchas came in the A.C.B. Office in jeep.
6. Thereafter police Inspector Shri Shaikh and police constable Vyahere Anti Corruption Branch Aurangabad also came. They were introduced to panchas and the complainant and vice versa. Thereafter in presence of panchas and at their instance pre-trap panchnama No.1 was prepared. While preparing panchnama, all legal technicalities were followed including disclosure of the complainant by complainant to panchas. Use of anthracene powder etc. the complainant produced notes of Rs.300/-, their numbers were noted in the panchnama. anthracene powder was applied to the notes. Thereafter, notes were kept in the pocket of the complainant. Thereafter instructions were given to complainant and panchas as mentioned in the panchnama No.1. The Government complainant Vikas Kohak took care that before starting for raid anthracene powder is not attached to the hand of anybody. Thereafter police Inspector Kohak, two panchas, Police Inspector Shaikh, complainant, members of the raiding party proceeded in the Government vehicle from Beed and went to Nathapur. They stopped Government jeep near the field of Chauhan Bandhu. Thereafter as per the instructions the Government complainant, complainant Laxman and panch Baliram Dhole proceeded by foot and went to S.T. Stand square of Nathapur. The raiding party was divided into two groups. Thereafter, they followed complainant keeping sufficient distance while concealing their presence.
7. Thereafter they concealed themselves at the square. Complainant Laxman and panch Dhole first stopped near Anand betel stall. Thereafter, they halted near Baba Pan Centre. They met Hawaldar, Chauhan wearing while shirt and white pyjama. Head Constable Chauhan told the complainant that he was waiting for him since 1/2 hours. Thereafter, Hawaldar Chauhan asked the complainant Laxman Are whether he brought money. The complainant Are told him that he had brought remaining Rs.300/- as told by him. Thereafter Hawaldar Chauhan stretched his right hand in front of complainant.
Thereafter the complainant Are took out notes of bribe from his left shirt pocket. He put them in hand of Hawaldar Chauhan. Thereafter Hawaldar Chauhan counted those notes. At that time complainant gave signal as instructed to indicate acceptance of bribe. Thereafter police Inspector Shaikh ran towards Head Constable Chauhan and held his both hands near the wrist. At that time, Head Constable Chauhan threw notes in his right hand while crumpling on the ground. Thereafter panch No. 2 Rathod and other raiding party members reached to the spot at that time Mahadeo Trimbak Chauhan came there and started asking P.I. Kohak etc. as to why Head constable Chauhan is being beaten.
8. Thereafter the Government complainant Kohak introduced them to him. Thereafter Mahadeo Chauhan asked P.W.2 Rathodl to lift notes thrown by H.C. Chauhan from the ground. Accordingly panch No.2 collected spread over notes. As it was inconvenience to prepare panchnama in the situation where both the hands of Chauhan were folded. The Government complainant took him to Gram Panchayat Karyalaya, Nathapur. Thereafter the name of accused was taken down alongwith his designation and address. Thereafter, windows and doors of Gram Panchayat office were closed. Both the hands of A.S.I. Chauhan were examined in the light of ultra violet lamp and presence of powder were found on his both hands. Thereafter notes in possession of panch No.2 Rathod was examined in the light of ultraviolet lamp. The presence of anthracene powder was also noticed on those notes. It was so confirmed by both the panchas and police Inspector Kohak etc. number of these notes were tallied with numbers mentioned in the panchnama No.1/1 numbers of the notes mentioned in panchnama No.2 Out of these notes, three notes were fresh. But torn notes were in crumpled condition. All these notes were kept in one packet. Packet was sealed and panchas and police inspector signed on the packet. The said packet was sealed and taken in possession by the Government complainant. Thereafter, P.I. Kohak asked accused to give his say but he refused to give anything in hand writing, as his mental condition was not good.
9. Thereafter the Government complainant and panchas inspected the spot and boundaries of the spot were mentioned in the panchnama. The panchnama was prepared in the Gram Panchayat Office. One copy of the panchnama was given to accused. Thereafter all of them went to Pimpalner police station in the jeep. As per instructions of Government complainant Kohak, A.S.I. Chauhan had handed over original papers of crime No. 104/90, 105/90. He also took application of complainant Laxman Vishnu Are. So also his application given to Superintendent of Police and the application of Rajabhau Laxman Are. P.I. Kohak and panchas inspected these papers and signed these papers. Thereafter these papers were seized and accordingly panchnama No.3 was prepared. Thereafter all of them excluding accused came to Anti Corruption Branch Office. Thereafter the Government complainant Shri Kohak told the panchas sealed packet containing bottle of anthracene powder. So also signatures of the panchas taken and kept the packet in the cup board and panchnama No.4 was prepared accordingly.
10. Thereafter on the next day the Government complainant went to Pimpalner police station and filed the complaint Exh.42. Head Constable Panhalkar registered the offence as Crime No. 3 of 1991 under Section 7, 12 (1) (d) r.w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, he obtained certificate extract of crime No. 104 of 1990 and 105 of 1990 of P.S. Pimpalner from Head constable Panhalkar. The original register did not show timing of the arrest of Laxman Are and Rajabhau Are in crime No.104 of 1990. Accordingly he verified and signed mentioning their absence. In fact, Laxman and his two sons namely Rajabhau and Pandurang were arrested in proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. also in Section 152 of Cr.P.C. of the Cr.P.C. but no entry of the said arrest was taken in the arrest register. Thereafter, he went to Tahsil Office, Beed and obtained certificate of the extracts of arrest of Laxman and his sons. He recorded the statement of Vasant Kate, the concerned clerk from Tahsil Office. The documents obtained from the Tahsil Office are at Exh.19. Thereafter they issued letter to Tahsildar to arrange to prepare a map of the spot where the trap was arranged. He also recorded the statement of surety Vishwanath Devadkar. He recorded statements of one Madhavrao Trimbakrao Chavan, member of Gram Panchayat, Sk. Jamil Sk. Ahmed, owner of Kashmir Pan Center. Radhakrishna Giri, owner of Baba Pan Center. Shriram Madhav Chavan, owner of Tea stall and four persons. He recorded the statement of P.S.I. Pimpalner Head Constable Panhalkar, Head constable Maksood Ahmed Manjur Ahmed. He took Circle Officer Vilas Sharangat to the spot and gave him information of the panchnama for drawing map of the spot. Thereafter, he went to the S.P. Office Beed and obtained copies of posting order of A.S.I. Chavan at Pimpalner Police Station. Thereafter, he prepared a set of all investigating papers and sent it to S.P. Office Beed for obtaining sanction in the month of June, 1991. He received a map of the circle Inspector, Sharangat in August, 1991. On the very day he recorded his statement. He got sanction order on 21st of August, 1991. He filed charge sheet in the court on 31.8.1991.
11. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge framed charge against the accused under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r.w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as per Exh.8. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty as per the Exh.9.
12. Thereafter Prosecution examined in all nine witnesses in support of its case. Laxman s/o Vishnu Are, P.W.1 (Exh.15) is the complainant. Vasant Ganpatrao Ghat P.W.2 (Exh. 18), Madhavrao Trimbakrao Chavan P.W.3 (Exh. 2)), who is eye witness. Shaikh Jamil Shaikh Hamid, P.W.4 (Exh.11) owner of pan center adjacent to spot of incident. Kaushalkumar Pathak, P.W.5 (Exh.23) is Deputy Commissioner of Police at Bombay. Baliram Nivruttirao Dhole P.W.6 (Exh.26) is the panch witness, Vishwanath Jagannath Devadkar P.W.7 (Exh.33) who is standing as surety for Laxman and his sons and Vikas Murlidharrao Kohak P.W.9 (Exh. 41).
13. Thereafter statement of accused is recorded under Section 313 of the Code of criminal Procedure. The defence of the accused is of total denial. As per him, the complainant gave false complaint because accused refused to involve the names of such persons who were not connected with the offence. In the complaint given by complainant's son Rajabhau. As per him the complainant thrusted the notes into his hands. As per him the Government witnesses deposed as per the directions of their superior.
14. The learned Additional Special Judge, Beed after framing necessary points and recording evidence and after hearing the parties has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) (d) and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-I/D R.I. for nine months and the for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) (i) (ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 4000/- I/D to suffer R.I. for one year. Hence, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is under challenge in this appeal.
15. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not consistent, there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements and, therefore, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.1 Laxman Arey in his examination-in-chief has stated that when they went to the Police Station, P.S.I. was not present in the police station. His surety was accepted by accused but he demanded Rs. 500/- for accepting surety. It is further deposed by this witness that on Tuesday they were released on bail in police station and on Wednesday their bail was accepted in chapter case in the Office of Tahsildar at Beed. This fact is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 Vasant Chate, who has proved Exh.19/3 and 19/5. Therefore, the Counsel for appellant would submit that the documents at Exh.19/3 and 19/5 would show that in Chapter Case No.1/91 the complainant and others were released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.500/- on 2.1.1991 and in Chapter Case No.3/91, they were released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 2000/- on 4.1.1991 by accepting surety. Therefore, the Counsel for appellant would submit that this shows that the complainant and others were already released on bail. He further submitted that P.W.1 Laxman Arey in his cross-examination has admitted that he was released on bail in police station Pimpalner six days prior to the trap. He gave Rs.100/- to the accused 5 to 7 days after the bail. Therefore, the Counsel would submit that this clearly shows that the work of releasing P.W.1 on bail was already done by accused - appellant and, therefore, there was no question of demand of Rs.400/- from P.W.1 Laxman for releasing him on bail. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the cross-examination of P.W.1 Laxman and submitted that P.W.1 Laxman wanted that the appellant / accused should add names of some persons. However, the appellant did not accede to his request and, therefore, P.W.1 Laxman had also given application to the Superintendent of Police and Tahsildar against the appellant / accused. It is further submitted that even P.W.1 Laxman in his cross- examination has admitted that he became angry as other names were not added in the offence by the accused. It is further submitted that P.W.1 Laxman lodged complaint to the ACB on 12th January, 1991 i.e. after lapse of 7 to 8 days after the alleged demand. This shows that P.W.1 had a grudge against the accused and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. It is further submitted that one of the essential ingredients of section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 regarding motive for accepting illegal gratification of Rs.300/- has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Suryabhan vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1995 Cr.L.J. 107. It is further submitted that the appellant proved his case by preponderance of probability. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Counsel placed reliance in case of Banarsidas vs. State of Haryana reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2282, and submitted that in that case, it is held that mere proof of recovery of bribe money from accused is not sufficient to prove the offence. The prosecution has to establish demand also. He has further invited my attention to another judgment of the Apex Court in case of C.M. Girishbabu vs. State of Kerala reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1693, which takes similar view as is taken in case of Banarsidas (supra).
16. The learned Counsel for appellant further submitted that P.W.1 Laxman Arey has admitted in his examination-in-chief that when he along with his son Rajabhau and surety holder Vishwanath had been to the Police Station at that time the accused had demanded money for releasing him on bail. However, the prosecution has examined Vishwanath Devadkar as P.W.7 but, he had not stated about the demand by the accused. Therefore, the Counsel would submit that the prosecution has not proved the prior demand in this case. In support of his submission, the counsel for appellant placed reliance on the judgment in case of Avinash Sitaram Garware vs. State of Maharashtrareported in 2008 ALL M.R. (Cri) 85. It is further submitted that in the post- trap panchanama (Exh.28), averments of demand are missing. So also in the sanction order at Exh.24, the demand is not mentioned. Therefore, the Counsel for the appellant would submit that the very foundation of the trap i.e. the demand is not proved and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. It is further submitted that sanctioning authority P.W.5 Kaushalkumar Pathak in his evidence and more particularly, in cross- examination has given evasive answers to the questions of defence. Therefore, he submitted that it can safely be inferred that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind at the time of according sanction. Therefore, prosecution has not proved the sanction beyond all reasonable doubt. Relying on the grounds taken in the appeal memo and afore stated submissions, the learned Counsel for appellant would submit that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction.
17. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent State submitted that on 13th January, 1991 offence was registered against the accused u/s 7, 13(1)(d) r.w. Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complaint was lodged by one Vikas Laxman Kohok, Dy.S.P., ACB, Beed. There was demand of Rs.400/- for the purpose of granting bail to the complainant and his two sons. The accused was working as police officer at the relevant time and he had called the complainant along with his two sons in the police station and he demanded Rs.200/- each for granting them bail. The complainant showed his inability to pay the said amount since he was not having money at the relevant time with him. The accused insisted at least to pay Rs.400/- and in case said amount is not paid, the accused told the complainant that he would send them to the Beed Court for the purpose of bail. Therefore, the complainant requested the accused that he had no money at that time and he would pay the same afterwards. It is further submitted that the accused accepted the request of the complainant and asked him to bring amount of Rs.400/- after 8 - 10 days and told him to come to Beed for filing chapter case on the next day. After some days, the complainant met the accused. At that time, accused received Rs.100/- from the complainant and asked him to bring remaining amount of Rs.300/- in the market of Nathapur. Since the complainant was not willing to pay said amount, the complainant approached to the A.C.B., Beed on 11th January, 1991. The A.P.P. further submitted that the Dy. S.P., A.C.B., Beed recorded statement and prepared pre-trap panchanama. Panch witnesses were called and trap was arranged. The Panch witness Baliram Dhole was a shadow witness. The Dy. S.P. sent him along with complainant towards the accused as per their trap and in front of witness, accused demanded remaining amount of Rs.300/- to the complainant and accordingly, the complainatn handed over tented notes to the accused. As soon as the accused accepted tented notes and got it confirmed, by that time, the complainant gave signal to the raiding party and raid was completed. Mr. Shaikh from raiding party reached on the spot and caught both hands of accused. At that time, accused had immediately crushed the tented notes and thrown it on the ground. Those notes were recovered. As anthracene powder was applied to the notes, test of notes as well as hands of the accused was conducted in the Ultra Violate lamp and bluish shining was seen. Thereafter F.I.R. was lodged. It is further argued that the prosecution has examined the witnesses and there is corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 Laxman from the evidence of Panch witness P.W.6. It is further submitted that upon perusal of the evidence brought on record, demand, acceptance and recovery of tented notes is proved. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. would submit that the Special Court has rightly considered the evidence and convicted the appellant. Therefore, he submitted that this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order.
18. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and also the learned A.P.P. for the State. The evidence of P.W.1 Laxman is at Exh.15. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.1 Laxman has stated that he knows the accused. At the relevant time, he was working as Kotwal. He has served for about 20 years by that time. The incident occurred 7- 8 years back. He did not remember the day and date of the incident. He has stated that prior to 5 to 6 days of the incident, one Rajabhau Kale, Hanuman Shinde and 5 - 6 others assaulted his sons and mother. At that time, he was in village. Thereafter, his sons Rajabhau and Pandurang went to Pimpalner Police Station to lodge the complaint. At that time, the accused was working as Police Head Constable in Pimpalner Police Station. Their complaint was not accepted in police station. The said incident occurred on Sunday. Thereafter, on Monday the complainant went to S.P. Office at Beed. He gave application to the S.P. and Tahsildar at Beed. ON that day, when he was returning to his house along with his son, on the way the accused met him and told that he (complainant) is arrested. As the complainant had to take salary, he told to the accused that he will come to the Police Station tomorrow. Then the accused took his son Pandurang to Pimpalner Police Station on motorcycle. Complainant told the accused that he will come to Police Station tomorrow with surety.
On the next day, he took his son Rajabhau and surety Vishwanath Devadkar to Pimpalner Police Station. His another son Pandurang was at Pimpalner. The accused was present in the Police Station. The P.S.I. was not present in the Police Station. Complainant's surety was accepted by accused but he demanded Rs.500/- for accepting surety. Complainant was ready to give him Rs.400/-. At that time, the complainant told him that he had no money and he would bring the money on Thursday. On Tuesday, they were released on bail in police station and on Wednesday their bail was accepted in Chapter Case in the office of Tahsildar at Beed. On Thursday, complainant gave Rs.100/- to the accused at Pimpalner and told him that he would give him remaining Rs. 300/- in the weekly bazar of Nathapur on Saturday. Village Nathapur is 2 miles away from the village of the complainant. On Friday, complainant came to the office of A.C.B. at Beed and met to Mr. Kohak and narrated the incident to him, which was written down and complainant put his thumb impression on the said complaint. He has identified the complaint and his thumb impression in the Court. He further deposed that on Saturday before 7 a.m. he came to A.C.B., Beed. There were 5-6 people in the office. He told Shri Dhole that he wanted to give money. Then the complainant had stated minute details about the pre-trap arrangement and panchanama in the office of A.C.B. at Beed. It is further stated that serial number of the currency notes were noted down in the panchanama. Powder was rubbed to the currency notes with the help of cotton. Thereafter on folding the currency notes they were kept in the left side front pocket of his shirt. Mr. Kohak told him to give the said currency notes to accused Chavan and give signal by removing turban from his head by left hand. Then the complainant along with Mr. Kohak, Misal, Dhole and 5 to 6 others proceeded to Nathapur after 2 p.m. by jeep and reached Nathapur at 3 p.m. The jeep was parked one furlong away from Nathapur. Then complainant and Dhole first proceeded to Bazar of Nathapur and remaining members of raiding party followed them. Complainant and Dhole stopped at bus stand where the accused Chavan came. He was in civil dress. Complainant told Dhole that Chavan had come and so they proceeded towards Chavan. Accused Chavan asked him whether he had brought money. Complainant told that he had brought money and that he was waiting for long time. The accused asked him to give money, complainant took currency notes from his pocket by right hand and handed over to accused. He had seen six currency notes by his hands. Complainant removed his turban and gave signal to the raiding party. Raiding party came immediately and caught the accused. Accused kept those notes in his right side pocket of trouser. The accused and complainant were taken to Gram Panchayat Office He further stated that he came along with raiding party at Beed and they left him near Shivaji statue. On the next day morning again he was called in A.C.B. Office and his statement was recorded.
At this juncture of examination-in-chief of the complainant, A.P.P. wanted to ascertain whether the witness is supporting the prosecution and for that purpose, he sought permission from the Court to ask question to the complainant. One question was asked by the A.P.P. to the complainant that did it happen that in the office of Gram Panchayat complainant's hands were seen under the machine. He further stated that except checking hands of the complainant, nothing was done in the office of Gram Panchayat. This witness was cross-examined by the defence Counsel at length.
In his cross-examination, P.W.1 complainant admitted that at the relevant time, he was residing at Aadgaon, which is his native place and he was posted as Kotwal at the same place. He has further deposed that the offence was registered against three persons namely, Hanumant Shinde, Rajabhau Kale and Kachru Kadam on the basis of complaint filed by his son. Thereafter, Hanumant Shinde had given complaint against him and the offence was registered. The complainant has specifically stated, "I was insisting that the names of said Madhavrao and other 2 to 3 persons may be included in the crime as accused. It is not correct to say that no offence was disclosed against them that's why accused was not ready to add their names in the offence. It is true that as the accused was not ready to add their names, I gave applications to S.P. and Tahsildar against them." He further admitted that he became angry against accused as their names were not added by the accused. The complainant has further admitted that he was released on bail in the Police Station, Pimpalner six days prior to the trap. He gave Rs.100/- to the accused 5 to 7 days after the bail. On the day of bail, Thursday was decided to be the day for giving money to the accused. On that day, there was no discussion that money was to be paid to the accused on Saturday. He further stated that when he gave complaint, he did not tell Mr. Kohak that money was to be given to the accused on Thursday. After getting hail, he felt that complaint should be given against the accused to A.C.B., Beed. He was released on bail either on Monday or Tuesday in Pimpalner Police Station. On that day, immediately he did not go to the office of A.C.B. to lodge complaint. As accused would be angry, he gave him Rs.100/- even though he thought to give complaint against him. Complainant further stated that he went to Pimpalner for bail at 11 to 11.30 a.m. On that day he was in police station till 2 p.m. He further stated that on Thursday there used to be weekly Bazar at Pimpalner. The suggestion was given to the complainant that there was crowd in the police station due to weekly bazar. However, he has denied that suggestion that there was crowd in the police station because of the weekly bazar at Pimpalner. He further stated that he went to the police station Pimpalner after 4.30 p.m. to give Rs.100/- to the accused. He did not remember who were the other police persons present in the police station. On Friday, at 10 a.m. he came to the office of A.C.B. at Beed. He was there for about half an hour. At that time, except Mr. Kohak, nobody was there. He further stated that the weekly bazar of Nathapur is held on northern side of the road, which goes to Nathapur. This witness has further stated that the accused came in Bazar. He came on motorcycle. The accused had parked motorcycle on the east of the road. He came to the accused as soon as he parked motorcycle. He further deposed that distance between the place where he was standing with the accused and Gram Panchayat was 1000 ft. He further stated that it is true that at the time of trap the accused was in-charge of Nathapur bit. He further stated that he does not know whether on every Saturday accused used to come to Nathapur for Bandobast of Bazar. He admitted that there was weekly bazar of Nathapur on the relevant date. He further stated that he used to go for every bazar at Nathapur. He has specifically denied the suggestion that he went there and tried to thrust currency notes in the right hand of the accused and that he pushed currency notes by right hand and denied to accept the same. He has already denied the suggestion that the accused refused to accept money and he tried to put the currency notes in pocket of his shirt. Further he has denied the suggestion that there was no demand and acceptance of the money on Saturday by the accused.
19. The evidence of P.W.1 Laxman has been narrated in detail herein above. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the complaint lodged by the P.W.1 complainant on 12.1.1991. In his complaint, he has stated that 15 days prior to lodging of the complaint, in the evening of Sunday, one Rajabhau Kale, Hanumant Shinde, Kachru Kadam and other 6 to 7 persons came to his house and assaulted his mother, wife and both sons. At that time, he was sitting near Hanuman temple. In that respect, his son Rajabhau went to Police Station Pimpalner to give complaint. However, after returning from police station, his son told him that Head Constable Chavan had not written down names of all the accused persons. Therefore, on Monday the complainant lodged complaint with the D.S.P., Beed and Tahsildar, Beed mentioning therein the names of all the accused persons. This part of the complaint does indicate that there was annoyance in the mind of the complaint against appellant for not including the names of all the accused persons as narrated by his son Rajabhau. He has further stated in the complaint that on Tuesday, he met Head Constable Chavan near station of Black Hanuman at Beed. At that time, his son Pandurang was accompanying him. It was about 9 a.m. Head Constable Chavan and another constable with him were in civil dress. Head Constable Chavan told complainant that he is arrested. That time complainant replied that he has to bring his salary from the Tahsil office and, thereafter, Head Constable Chavan took Pandurang on motorcycle and they left. He has further stated that his son Pandurang was arrested and on second day i.e. Wednesday, he was brought before the Tahsildar, Beed by Head Constable Chavan and thereafter, he was released on bail in the evening on furnishing surety. At that time, police head constable Chavan told the complainant that he wanted to arrest him and his other two sons. The complainant replied Chavan that it is now too late. Therefore, they will come to the police station at Pimpalner tomorrow. The appellant Chavan told them to come early on next day. Accordingly, the complainant on Thursday at about 11 a.m. went to Pimpalner Police Station and met Head Constable Chavan. He has specifically stated that one Mr. Vishwanath Devadkar was with him to stand as surety with 7/12 extracts and his two sons were also accompanying him. At that time, Head Constable Chavan called the complaint alone at some distance and told the complainant that he will have to pay Rs.500/- for releasing them. The complainant showed his inability to pay Rs.500/- and thereupon, the Head Constable told him that all three will have to go in jail. The complainant requested Chavan not to do injustice. On that Chavan again told the complainant to pay Rs.400/-. Thereupon, the complainant replied that he has no money to pay. Thereafter, Chavan told the complainant that he will release all three on bail. However, he will have to pay an amount of Rs. 400/- within 8 to 10 days and said amount will have to be given by the complainant. The complainant agreed for said demand of the accused and accordingly, all his sons and himself were released on bail. The complainant further stated that even without 7/12 extracts the accused Chavan released them on bail. This witness has further stated that he met the accused subsequently and he paid Rs.100/- to him out of Rs.400/- as agreed and agreed to pay remaining Rs.300/- on Saturday in Nathapur market. Accordingly, on 12.1.1992 he went to the office of A.C.B. and informed that P.H.C. Chavan is going to accept remaining Rs.300/- and therefore, he has filed this complaint. He had no wish to give Rs. 300/- to Chavan and therefore, requested to take necessary action.
20. On careful perusal of the contents of the complaint, it does appear that the alleged demand by the accused appellant was on Thursday at about 11 a.m. However, in the deposition before the Court this witness has stated that the accused met him on Monday and he told him that he will come tomorrow i.e. on Tuesday and accordingly, on next day, he went to police station along with his son and on said day, the accused demanded Rs.500/- for accepting surety. Therefore, if the evidence of the P.W.1 before the Court is read with the contents of the complaint, it no where refers the date of the incident. However, in the complaint he has stated that he went to police station on Thursday and there was demand of Rs.500/- by the appellant and in his deposition before the Court he stated that he went to the police station on Tuesday and there was demand of Rs.500/-. This version of the complainant that he went to police station on Thursday as stated by him in the complaint and his version in the statement before the Court that he went to police Station on Tuesday and there was demand of Rs.500/- is required to be appreciated / seen carefully. He is not sure as to on which day he went to the police station and on which there was initial demand of Rs.500/-. On perusal of his deposition before the Court and also in the complaint, it appears that his sons and himself were released on the same day by accepting surety by the appellant. The alleged amount of demand was for releasing them by accepting surety. It is an admitted position that when the complainant visited the police station along with his sons, the appellant released them on the very same day by accepting surety as stated by the complainant in the complaint and also in the evidence before the Court. Therefore, the case of the complainant is that the alleged demand of Rs.500/-, which was reduced to Rs. 400/- was for accepting surety as stated by him in his examination-in-chief before the Court. Therefore, whether there was demand of Rs.500/- which, according to the complainant, was reduced to Rs.400/- on the day and date on which he visited the police station assumes importance in the present case for the reason that according to the complainant himself, surety was accepted by the accused without having been paid an amount of Rs.500/- or reduced amount of Rs.400/-.
21. The prosecution has examined P.W.7 Vishwanath Devadkar. In his evidence he has stated nothing about demand of Rs.500/- by the appellant from the complainant. In his evidence before the Court, P.W.7 has stated that he knows the complainant and accused. He had gone to Pimpalner Police station for furnishing surety for complainant and his sons 7 - 8 years back at about 11 to 12 a.m. from Aadgaon. He met accused Chandrsen Chauhan. He told him that he is standing as surety for Laxman and his sons. Thereafter, he furnished surety. He admitted signature on the surety bonds and the contents thereof. He stated that he was in police station for about half an hour. Thereafter, they returned to their village. Therefore, from his deposition before the Court, it is clear that he has not uttered a single word about demand of Rs.500/- by the appellant from the complainant. Therefore, except bare words of the complainant that there was alleged demand of Rs.500/- by the appellant, there is no any independent evidence to corroborate his version. It is also required to be noted that as stated by the complainant and P.W.7 in their statements that the surety bonds at Exh. 34, 35 and 36 were accepted by the appellant, admittedly without payment of any amount by the complainant and, therefore, the act for which alleged demand was made was performed already. Thereafter, they were also released on bail. Therefore, on reading evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7 and reading contents of the complaint, the position emerges that the complainant is not sure whether the alleged demand of Rs.500/- to accept the surety was on Thursday or on Tuesday. Secondly, the alleged demand of Rs.500/- by the accused as stated by the complainant is not corroborated by any independent evidence. Further contention of the complainant that thereafter, after two days he paid Rs.100/- out of Rs.400/- is not supported by any independent evidence. Therefore, except bare words of the complainant, there is no independent evidence brought on record by the prosecution. It is an admitted position that the accused accepted surety as furnished by the complainant at Exh. 34, 35 and 36 and, according to the complainant, the alleged demand of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification was for accepting surety.
22. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the reported judgment of this Court in case of Suryabhan vs. State of Maharashtra (1995 CRI.L.J.107) wherein, there was allegation that certain amount was demanded for making entries in mutation register in favour of the complainant party. However, there was documentary evidence showing that said mutation was already effected by the accused in the knowledge of the complainant and his brothers and the same was certified and approved by the Revenue Inspector on date prior to making of alleged demand of bribe and also there was no independent evidence about the demand of bribe by the accused. In the instant case also, admittedly, the surety was furnished by the complainant and P.W.7 on the date on which there was alleged demand. Alleged demand of Rs.500/- was not stated by P.W.7 and there are only bare words of the complainant. It is an admitted position that on the date on which the surety of P.W.7 and other witnesses was accepted at Exh.34, 35 and 36, the complainant did not pay anything to the accused appellant. However, according to the complainant, the work was done on the said day itself. However, Rs.500/-, subsequently reduced to Rs.400/- were demanded for the said work which was already performed. There is no independent evidence brought on record by the prosecution to corroborate the version of the complainant. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the alleged demand of Rs.500/- as also payment of Rs.100/- was not supported by any independent evidence. Therefore, in the case of Suryabhan (supra), this Court had taken a view that the conviction of the accused therein for offence punishable u/s 13(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would not be proper and it cannot be sustained.
23. The evidence of the complainant in his cross-examination before the Court has been extensively narrated herein before. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 complainant has specifically stated that it is true that offence was registered against Hanumant Shinde, Rajabhau Kale and Kachru Kadam on the basis of the complaint filed by his son. It is true that Hanumant Shinde had given complaint against him and his sons and offence was registered. P.W.1 further stated, "I was insisting that the names of said Madhavrao and other 2 to 3 persons may be included in the crime as accused." (Emphasis supplied). He further stated, "As accused was not ready to add their names in the offence, I gave applications to S.P. and Tahsildar against them."(Emphasis supplied). He further stated that, "I became angry against the accused as their names were not added in the offence by the accused." (Emphasis supplied). Therefore, it follows from the cross-examination of P.W.1 Complainant that he was annoyed with the appellant for not including names of other 2 to 3 persons and to that effect, he had lodged complaint with S.P. and Tahsildar. He has further admitted that he was angry against the appellant for that reason. Therefore, it is to be concluded that there was grudge and annoyance in the mind of the complainant about the accused / appellant for not including names of 2 to 3 other persons in the crime registered on the complaint by his son with the police station, Pimpalner. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that they were released on bail in the police station six days prior to trap and he gave Rs.100/- to accused 5 to 7 days after bail. On the day of bail, Thursday was decided to be the day for giving money to the accused. However, at this juncture, it is required to be stated that in his complaint, he has stated that he went to Police Station, Pimpalner to furnish surety and bail on Thursday at 11 a.m. and that was the first day when there was demand of Rs. 500/- for accepting surety and granting bail. Therefore, version of the complainant as to on which day either on Tuesday or Thursday there was alleged demand is not clear and this conduct of the complainant creates doubt about the authenticity of his evidence.
At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the defence taken by the appellant / accused in his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. In the said statement, while replying Question No.53 What you have to say more? the appellant replied, "I am giving W.S." The appellant herein has given separate written statement in his defence. He has stated that he is working five years prior to the date of incident as A.S.I. His entire service career is unblemished. He has received 60 rewards during his service career from his department for his remarkable work. He further stated that the son of the complainant namely Rajabhau had filed complaint with the police station against one Rajabhau Kale and accordingly, he registered the offence against said persons and investigation was carried out.
Thereafter, the complainant Laxman Arey insisted to add names of some other persons in the said crime though those persons were not related to the said offence. The appellant / accused did not accede to the insistence of the complainant Laxman as no offence could be made out against them. Therefore, the complainant Laxman had given false complaint against him. Cognizable offence was registered against the complainant and his son and the said offence was bailable. I accepted surety and released them on bail in the police station itself. The appellant did not demand any amount from the complainant as a bribe amount to accept their surety and release them on bail. After bail was granted to the complainant, he never turned up to the police station and therefore, there was no question of any payment of Rs.100/- by the complainant. He further stated that on 12.1.1991 he went to Nathapur since there was weekly bazar and he went there for Bandobast since he was assigned said duty. On every Saturday he goes to Nathapur since there is big Bazar of cattle. On 12.1.1991 in between 3 to 4 p.m. he met the complainant in weekly bazar. Thereafter, at about 4 p.m. the appellant was standing in the square at Nathapur-Beed road along with other 3 to 4 persons. At that time, the complainant came near him and started telling the appellant to take amount which he was holding in his hand. The complainant forcefully tried to thrust the said amount in the right hand of the appellant. At that time, the appellant refused to accept the same and the complainant tried to thrust the said amount in right side pocket of his shirt. That time, the appellant refused to accept the said amount by his left hand. At that time, many persons were standing there, namely, Madhavrao Chavan, Shaikh Shaukat Sk. Osman, Rashid Babamiya,Asaram Baburao Giri, Bhasker Dnyanoba Surve, Syed Fakruddin Sk., Yunus Banemiya etc.
The appellant further stated that Mr. Kohak had prepared bogus panchanama. He stated that since the appellant did not accede to the request of the complainant to include certain names as accused in the crime registered on the complaint by his son, keeping grudge in the mind about the said refusal, the complainant filed false complaint against him. He has also stated further minute details how the false panchanama was prepared, how map prepared by the prosecution is not as per actual situation of the spot.
24. Therefore, on reading the written statement filed by the appellant / accused it appears that the appellant had taken a probable defence and the said defence is not required to be proved by strict proof. If the defence of the appellant as reflected in the written statement is read in the light of cross-examination of the complainant, it is abundantly clear that the complainant P.W.1 had grudge in his mind for not acceding to his request / insistence to add names of other two - three persons as accused in the crime registered on complaint given by his son. The appellant / accused was the officer who registered the said offence and refused to add names of other persons as said by P.W.1 since they were not involved in the said offence. It has also come in the evidence of P.W. 1 complainant that on the next day he had lodged complaint to S.P. and Tahsildar regarding the same. That itself shows that the complainant had grudge and revengeful attitude in his mind against the appellant and with pre- determination, he had made up story of alleged demand of Rs.500/- which was reduced to Rs. 400/- and payment of Rs.100/- earlier and Rs. 300/- on the day of actual trap. At the cost of repetition, it should be mentioned that the alleged demand has not been corroborated by any other independent evidence.
25. So far as pre-trap panchanama is concerned, it is not seriously challenged by the appellant. Therefore, it is not necessary to enter into that aspect.
26. So far as actual demand and acceptance of the amount by the appellant is concerned, the complainant in his deposition before the Court has stated that he along with Shri Kohak, Misal, Dhone and 5 to 6 others proceeded to Nathapur after 2 p.m. by jeep. He himself and Dhole first proceeded to Bazar of Nathapur and then the raiding party followed them. Thereafter, accused Chavan came there. He was in civil dress. The complainant told Dhole that Chavan had come and they proceeded towards accused. The complainant has stated further, "Accused Chavan asked me whether I had brought money and I told him that I had brought money. I also told him that I was waiting for him from long time. He asked me to give him money and I took out the currency notes from my pocket by my right hand and gave in the hands of accused. He had seen six currency notes by his hands. Then I removed my turban from the head by my left hand and gave signal to raiding party. Then the members of raiding party came and caught the accused on the spot. Accused had kept the currency notes in the right side pocket of his trouser. Thereafter myself and accused were taken to the office of Grampanchayat." The prosecution case is that the evidence of P.W.1 quoted herein above is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6 Dhole in material particulars. Therefore, it would be relevant to quote that part of the evidence of the P.W. 6 Dhole, who stated about the actual incident, thus:
"The accused stood near electric pole. The complainant went there I was standing near both of them. The accused told the complainant that he was waiting for him for longer time. Then complainant told him that he was also waiting for him.
Then accused asked the complainant whether he had brought money. The complainant told him that as per agreed he had brought Rs.300/-. Then accused put forth his right hand. Then the complainant took out the currency from his pocket by right hand and put the same on the right hand of the accused. The accused counted the notes by both hands. Then the complainant removed his turban from the head and gave signal to the raiding party. Then Shaikh from raiding party rushed on the spot and caught both the hands of the accused.
After counting the notes the accused threw the said notes by his right hand on the ground. One person by name Madhav Trimbak Chavan came there and asked to Shri Kohak why the accused was beaten and he told him that he was officer of A.C.B. and then Madhav Chavan made apology. Then the currency notes were collected by another panch Rathod from the ground." (Emphasis supplied).
On careful perusal of the afore quoted portion of the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.6 from their evidence, it can be concluded that there is material variance in their statement. P.W.1 has stated in his afore quoted statement that, "I took out the currency notes from my pocket by my right hand and gave in the hands of accused. He had seen six currency notes by his hands. Then I removed my turban from the head by my left hand and gave signal to raiding party. Then the members of raiding party came and caught the accused on the spot. Accused had kept the currency notes in the right side pocket of his trouser." However, P.W.6 Dhole in his afore quoted statement states that, "Then the complainant took out the currency from his pocket by right hand and put the same on the right hand of the accused. The accused counted the notes by both hands. Then the complainant removed his turban from the head and gave signal to the raiding party. Then Shaikh from raiding party rushed on the spot and caught both the hands of the accused." The P.W.6 Dhole further states, "After counting the notes the accused threw the said notes by his right hand on the ground. One person by name Madhav Trimbak Chavan came there and asked to Shri Kohak why the accused was beaten and he told him that he was officer of A.C.B. and then Madhav Chavan made apology." This statement of P.W.6 that after counting notes, accused threw the said notes by his right on the ground is different from the statement of the P.W.1 complainant who states that accused had kept the currency notes in the right side pocket of his trouser. P.W.6 Dhole in his evidence also stated that both the hands of the accused were caught hold by Mr. Shaikh. Then it is difficult to digest that accused threw the currency notes by his right hand on the ground. It has come in the evidence of P.W.6 that he was throughout standing nearby P.W.1 and accused. Therefore, the material variance in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6 makes the prosecution story untrustworthy. As stated herein above, the prosecution has failed to bring on record independent evidence or corroboration for alleged previous demand of Rs.500/- as stated by the complainant. Therefore, in my opinion, if the entire prosecution evidence is perused carefully, it appears that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish initial / previous demand of Rs.500/- as alleged by the complainant for releasing the complainant and his sons on bail by accepting surety by the appellant. It is admitted position that the complainant and his sons were released on the same day when they approached the Police Station and the complainant himself has stated that he did not pay a single pie to the appellant. Therefore, the alleged demand as stated by the complainant was made for the purpose of accepting surety and releasing them on bail. However, that act was already done by the appellant on the day on which the complainant and his sons were arrested and taken to the police station, as stated by the P.W.1 and P.W.7. P.W.7 who accompanied P.W.1 complainant in the police station on the day on which their surety was accepted and bail was granted to the complainant and his sons, does not state anything in his evidence about the alleged demand of Rs.500/- and further reducing it to Rs.400/-. On the contrary, the evidence of P.W.7 unequivocally indicates that the appellant accepted sureties at Exh.34, 35, and 36 and accordingly, the complainant and his sons were released. There is no single word in the statement of P.W.7 about any demand as stated by the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that there was alleged demand of Rs. 500/- or Rs.400/- for accepting surety and releasing them on bail in the police station. After prosecution fails on the point of demand, the further case of the prosecution should necessarily fail.
27. Therefore, on going through the entire evidence brought on record and more particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 Laxman complainant, it is clear that the complainant and his two sons were released on bail in the police station and on next day their bail was accepted in Chapter Case in Tahsil Office at Beed. This fact is also corroborated by P.W.2 Vasant who has proved Exh.19/1 to 19/7. These documents would show that in Chapter Case No. 1/91 the complainant and his sons were released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.500/- on 2.1.1991 and in Chapter Case No.3/91 they were released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 2000/- on 4.1.1991 by accepting surety. Therefore, P.W.1 himself has stated that they were released on bail six days prior to date of trap. Therefore, one of the essential ingredients of section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that amount of Rs.300/- was received by the accused / appellant from Laxman Arey P.W.1 as gratification as a motive or reward for releasing him on bail, has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
It is also relevant to mention that the appellant / accused is a police officer and ordinarily, he would not commit mistake by telling the complainant to pay the amount at a crowded place like weekly bazar. If he wanted to accept such amount, he would have done it by calling the complainant at an isolated place.
28. P.W.4 Sk. Jamir Sk. Hamid was running Pan Centra at Nathapur. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the A.P.P. However, nothing material could be elucidated from his cross-examination in support of prosecution case.
So far as sanction to prosecute is concerned, prosecution has examined P.W.5 Kaushalkumar Pathak as a sanctioning authority. In his cross-examination, he has given evasive answers to the questions of defence. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind at the time of according sanction. The prosecution has failed to prove sanction beyond reasonable doubt.
29. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court / this Court in the following case:
In case of Ajrun Bajirao Kale vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 85, this Court held that demand of bribe is a foundation in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere acceptance of money, by itself, would not be sufficient for the purpose of convicting the accused who is charged with an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the said Act. On perusal of the said judgment it further appears that this Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration (AIR 1976 SC 294) and Pandharinath Shelke v. State of Maharashtra (2005(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 940). In case of Banarasi Dass v. State of Haryana (2010 AIR SCW 2282), the Honourable Supreme Court held that mere proof of recovery of bribe money from accused is not sufficient to sustain conviction under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. In case of Avinash Sitaram Garware vs. State of Maharashtra (2008 ALL MR (Cri) 15), this Court held that if prior demand of money by accused is not proved, rest of the prosecution case will have to be read with great caution and circumspection. In cases where a person is charged with offences under the P.C. Act, he is required to refute the presumption of guilt contained in the said Act but the burden on him is not heavy. He has not to establish his defence beyond reasonable doubt. He may rebut the presumption by showing a mere preponderance of probability in his favour.
In case of Subhash Parbat Sonvane vs. State of Gujarat (2002 CRI.L.J. 2287), the Honourable Supreme Court held that mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the P.C. Act. In Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, the Legislature has specifically used the word `accepts' or `obtains'.
Yet, in case of V. Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P. (2007 CRI.L.J. 754), the Honourable Supreme Court held in para 24 that In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. In case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar (2010(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 247, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. For arriving at conclusion as to whether all ingredients of illegal gratification viz. demand, acceptance and recovery have been satisfied or not, facts and circumstances brought on record must be considered in their entirety. Presumptive evidence as laid down under Section 20 must also be considered, but, in respect thereof, it is trite law that, standard of burden of proof on accused vis-a-vis standard of burden of proof on prosecution would differ. Even in a case where burden is on accused, prosecution must prove foundational facts.
In case of Ramprakash Arora vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1973 SC 498), the Honourable Supreme Court held that there should be independent witness from which corroboration could be found of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses.
30. Therefore, taking overall of the matter, viewed from any angle, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence taken by the appellant / accused is required to be proved by preponderance of probabilities. He has discharged his burden by filing written statement. The defence taken by the appellant in the written statement that such false case has been filed by the complainant against him because the complainant had developed grudge and annoyance in his mind against the appellant and this has been specifically stated by the complainant himself in his cross- examination. Therefore, the appellant / accused deserves to be acquitted of the offences charged against him.
31. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.104 of 1999 is allowed. The impugned judgment and order 01.03.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Beed in Special Case No.55 of 1991 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, I/D R.I. for nine months and also convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/-, I/D R.I. for one year, is quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charges. Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled. Record & proceedings be sent back to the trial Court. Appeal stands disposed of.