STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHANKAR BHUJANGARAO WADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP and learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1-Clerk in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj and learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2-who is receiver of the illegal gratification-non public servant.

(2.) The special judge acquitted both the Respondents for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As the evidence on the point of demand was not satisfactory, the evidence on the point of the acceptance was not believed by the trial court. One of the reason for not accepting the evidence on the point of the demand is inconsistent statement made by the defacto Complainant-P.W. No. 2 before the court on one hand and before the disciplinary authority on the other hand.

(3.) Learned APP has taken me through the evidence of three witnesses and the record. They are as follows:-