CHAITRAM NATTHU SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, there is challenge to judgment and order dtd. 2/5/2005 passed by learned Special Judge and 2nd A.S.J., Dhule in Special Case No. 5 of 2002, returning guilt of the appellant for offence punishable under Sec. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act].

(2.) PW1 complainant approached appellant, who was working as a clerk in Sakri Tahsil Office, for getting possession of land which came to his share by virtue of a decree, i.e. on 15/5/2000. Accused/appellant demanded Rs.1,500.00 and after negotiations, brought down the amount to Rs.500.00. Therefore, complainant approached ACB and lodged report, on the basis of which, ACB authorities planned and arranged trap, panchas were called, complainant and pancha were appraised about the procedure of trap and instructions were given to pay tainted currency on demand and thereafter rely signal. Accordingly, shadow pancha PW2 and complainant PW1 approached appellant and on his demand, bribe amount was handed over and after acceptance, signal was given and accused was apprehended. ACB officer PW5 lodged report, carried out investigation and chargesheeted accused. Appellant-accused was duly tried by the Special Court vide Special Case No. 5 of 2002 and on appreciation of evidence, conviction was recorded.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, appellant had not put up any demand, nor accepted the amount. He submits that complainant himself had not supported and so, was required to be declared hostile by prosecution. According to prosecution, currency was handed over to a private person, who was a real estate agent, and said person is already discharged and thus, according to learned counsel, case of prosecution about acceptance becomes redundant. Learned counsel took this Court through the charge and would point out that in the charge which was framed and explained, there was no reference of demand. That, report under Sec. 169 of Cr.P.C. has already been forwarded by the investigating machinery against co-accused Sanjay Agrawal.