KHUSHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused has called in question the legality and correctness of the judgment in Special Case No.10/1995, by which he was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13[1][d] read with 13[2] of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C.Act). The Special Court held accused guilty under both counts and imposed sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, and imposed sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence punishable under Section 13 [1][d] read with Section 13 [2] of the P.C.Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution case in brief are as under :

(3.) The complainant was not inclined to pay the bribe amount, therefore, he went to the Anti Corruption Bureau Office at Nagpur and orally informed the demand made by the public servant for his remuneration or reward for doing official act. P.W.4- Police Inspector Jaiswal got reduced into writing the formal complaint and arranged for holding the trap. Police Inspector Jaiswal has called two panch witnesses namely P.W.3 - Kishore Ghumde and P.W.5 - Pramod Hajare to act as panch witnesses. On arrival of both the panch witnesses, the complainant has informed about demand raised by public servant. As per directions of P.I. Jaiswal, Head Constable Kshirsagar had shown demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution and stated about its use, effect, and importance in trap cases. On request of P.I. Jaiswal, complainant has produced a currency note of Rs.100/- to be paid as bribe amount. Head Constable Kshirsagar has applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency note by brush and it was kept in the left side chest pocket of the complainant. Again usual demonstration was shown to the complainant and panch witnesses. Necessary instructions were given by P.I. Jaiswal to complainant that he should not touch the currency note and to pay it to the accused only on demand. It was instructed that panch no.1 P.W.2 Kihore should remain with the complainant and observe the happenings and hear the conversation in between them. Panch no.2 P.W.5 Pramod was instructed to remain with the trap party. Accordingly pre-trap panchnama [Exh.42] was effected in the Anti Corruption office at Nagpur.