1. The appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 28/06/2000 passed by Learned Special judge, Buldana in Special Case No. 2 of 1992 whereby the Respondent accused was acquitted of offenses punishable under Section 7,13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
2. Facts stated are:-
On 17/08/1991 one Kishorkumar Manaklal Chandak resident of DongarKhandala Taluka and District Buldana approached the office of of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint against the accused who was working as Minimum wages Inspector (Agri.) in the office of the Labour Officer, Buldana. A notice was issued from the office of the Labour Officer to the the Complainant regarding an Agricultural labourer Baliram Vithoba Sawale employed on monthly basis pursuant to which the complainant had contacted the accused. The accused had demanded Rs. 300/- to settle the matter. The accused had negotiated and reduced the demand to Rs. 200/- and called the Complainant on 19/08/1991. The complainant lodged the complaint with ACB recorded by PSI Paund. After following the procedure as to pre-trap Panchnama the complainant had approached the accused as planned and gave currency notes to the accused near the staircase of the office. The accused had then gone inside the cabin of the Labour officer. Raiding party on receiving the signal as predetermined had raided the accused . The amount was found kept inside the paper with letter head of “Buddhist Society of India” and written from President of Caste Tribe Employees Union to the accused B. S. Gavai. Formalities of the trap Panchnama were completed. After the investigation the papers were sent to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nagpur to obtain the sanction to prosecute the accused from the competent authority. After the Sanction the accused was Charge sheeted. The accused pleaded not guilty to the Charge framed against him on 15/06/1998. Prosecution examined seven witnesses. The accused denied the criminal liability on the ground that the complainant had grudge against him as the notice was given to his father requiring him to pay additional amount to the agricultural labourer. The accused pleaded that he had not demanded nor accepted the amount from the complainant. The accused defended on the ground that the amount was planted in a booklet on the wooden rack to falsely implicate the accused. The accused also led evidence of the four witnesses to defend the case. The trial court held that the Prosecution had failed to prove the offense.
3. According to the Complainant his Father had received the notice and he wanted to close the case by approaching the accused. The trial court found that the case of the complainant as to first demand itself was not believable for want of convincing evidence. PW1 Kishorkumar had admitted that he reached the office of the accused on 16/08/1991 at about 12.00 to 12.30 hrs. The accused had asked him whether he had brought the register and the receipt. The accused offered to close the case for sum of Rs.300/-. Reliance was sought on the evidence of Ramadas Borate (PW4) for corroboration, however, PW4 frankly stated in the evidence that his statement was not recorded by anybody. The evidence of the PW1 and PW4 read in juxta position do not disclose as to who had made first offer to close the case. Ex 24 was a paper seized with powder detected as alleged. Defense of the accused is that he had neither demanded any amount from the complainant on 16/08/1991 or 19/08/1991 nor accepted any amount from the complainant. It is case of the accused that earlier also the the complainant had lodged false report against the accused as the accused had given notice to the father of the complainant and in that case father of the complainant was required to pay additional amount to the agricultural labourer employed by father of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant had grudge against the accused. The accused had been on the routine visit to Dongarkhandala on 16/07/1991 when Son of Ramgopal Chandak had abused the accused about which the accused had reported to his superior officer also. The accused had after attending some work on 16/08/1991 in his office the accused had proceeded to village Kolwad at about 12.00 noontime and the complainant did not met him on that day. On 19/081991 the complainant had came to his office along with one person of his village to the office when they were formally talking about the health of father of the complainant. They had gone out to have tea. On returning the complainant said threat he has some work with the accused. Therefore the accused told him that they will go to the office. When the accused reached the office, Peon told him that there was telephone call for him. When the accused went to make the phone call in the cabin of the Labour officer, at that time the complainant had followed the accused in the chamber of the Labour officer, followed by 7-8 persons who came there and one of them caught the hand of the accused and other informed him that he is Inspector of the Anti corruption Bureau and asked him whether he has accepted the money from any one. Search of the accused was taken but no amount was found with him. Other person had found the amount kept in the booklet, Labour gazette, in the wooden rack in that cabin which was seized by the Police. The accused was asked to dip his fingers in the sodium carbonate solution but the color did not change. Thus according to defence the amount was not accepted but planted by the complainant himself behind the back of the accused by hiding it in a booklet in a wooden rack in that cabin when the accused had gone to the cabin to make the telephone call. Thus, the accused had disputed that he demanded or accepted any amount from the complainant. The accused entered in the defence to examine four witnesses namely then Labour officer Shri Avinash Dharkar, DW2 Premsagar Kamble who had written the Chit (Ex 124) inside of which the alleged bribe amount was found.DW2 deposed that he had given the chit to the complainant for handing over to the accused and not to Sharad Misal who handed over to the accused as allege by the prosecution-3 is Shridhar Vaidya, Peon who had informed the accused about the phone call which he had received. Pursuant to which the accused went to make the phone call in the cabin of the Labour officer-4 Jagdeorao, villager from Kolwad who deposed about the visit of the accused to the village Kolwad on 16/08/1991. The witness deposed that he had met the accused on that day at the Bus stand and had talk with the accused at village Kolwad.
4. The prosecution is required to prove that there was demand of illegal gratification and voluntary payment of bribe , acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused for reason other than the motive or reward are essential ingredients of the offense of corruption punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. If there is explanation from the accused it is required to be considered upon preponderance of probabilities. The trial Court did examined the entire evidence in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the offenses beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The Impugned Judgment and order is well reasoned and sustainable considering the defence of the accused and evidence led by him making quite probable that he may have been falsely implicated.
5. Looking into the evidence on record as aforesaid the view of the trial court to acquit the accused was clearly sustainable and no interference is required .Appellate Court do have power to review, or reappreciate, and reconsider the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded. The Code of Criminal procedure has not put any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of the appellate power of the Court and the appellate court is free to arrive at such conclusion on facts and law, as it may consider appropriate ,even to upset the order of acquittal if there are substantial and compelling grounds to reverse the order. However, the appellate court has to bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favor of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available as in criminal jurisprudence that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. The presumption of innocence is further bolstered up by an order of acquittal. Thus, If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
6. Hence for all the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.