STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. AJAY RATANSINGH PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dtd. 29/1/2010 in ACB Special Case No. 50 / 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, by which the Respondent (Orig. Accused) was acquitted for the ofence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (for short "P.C.') Act, 1988. The Court below acquitted the accused primarily on the ground of invalid sanction and improbability about the demand and acceptance of bribe amount.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case can be stated as under: The Respondent (Orgi. Accused) was serving as an Assistant Police Inspector with MIDC Police Station, Mumbai. There was no dispute that the accused was a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the P.C. Act. On 16/2/2005, the police have arrested a person namely Harjindersingh in connection with Crime No. 62/05 registered with MIDC Police Station. One Ranjit Tagge was the brother of arrested accused Harjindersingh. It is the prosecution case that Ranjit Tagge was acquainted with the complainant Jeevan Jadhav. Ranjit has informed the complainant about the arrest of his real brother on 17/2/2005. The complainant along with Ranjit went to MIDC Police Station on 18/2/2005, met the accused and inquired with him about the arrest of Harjindersingh. On 23/2/2005, when the complainant and Ranjit met the accused, he demanded bribe of Rs.50,000.00 for facilitating Harjindersingh to be released on bail. The Accused also told that otherwise on 25/2/2005, when the Harjindersingh will be brought to the Court of Magistrate, he would oppose for bail. The complainant and Ranjit agreed to pay the bribe amount, however, on negotiation it was reduced to the amount of Rs.15,000.00. On request, the accused agreed to accept the frst installment of Rs.5000.00 on the following day. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he went to the ofce of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged a report. ACP Wakde laid a trap by securing two panch witnesses for the said purpose. The complainant has produced ten currency notes having denomination of Rs.500.00 each and its serial numbers were noted down. The police have applied anthracene powder on the currency notes. The complainant and panch witnesses were given demonstration of efect of anthracene powder. Accordingly pre-trap panchnama was prepared in presence of panchas.

(3.) It is the prosecution case that on 24/2/2005, the police team along with the complainant and both panch witnesses proceeded to MIDC Police Station by vehicle. The complainant and shadow panch witness Sayed visited MIDC Police Station. After few minutes, the accused asked them to follow outside the police Station. All of them went near Maruti Car parked opposite to the MIDC Police Station. The accused opened the door and asked the complainant to sit beside the driver's seat. The panch was asked to sit on rear seat. It is the prosecution case that the accused asked the complainant about bribe money to which complainant replied in the afrmative. The accused had opened the car's dash board and asked the complainant to keep the money inside. The complainant asked the accused to count the tainted notes which he did. Thereafter immediately, the complainant gave predetermined signal to the members of the raiding party, who arrived near car. The police have recovered bribe amount kept in the dash board's drawer. The accused was brought in same position to the police station. The police have seized those tainted currency notes and usual demonstration was taken. Thereafter, post trap panchnama was drawn.