STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MANIK GOPALRAO DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), State has come up in appeal, thereby questioning the maintainability and sustainability of judgment and order passed by Special Judge, Aurangabad dtd. 4/2/2004 in Special Case No. 22 of 1999, thereby acquitting present respondent from charges under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "P. C. Act").

(2.) In brief, prosecution was launched by Gangapur Police Station, alleging that, respondent herein was serving as a Senior Clerk in supply division of Tahsil Office, Gangapur. Informant Asaram Deokar, who ran fair price shop, was required to seek signature of respondent on the challans. Allegations are made that, respondent used to demand money to cause her signature. On 24/11/1998, when informant visited the office of respondent, she demanded Rs.50.00 towards last month as well as Rs.50.00 for current month and thereby demanded Rs.100.00. As informant was not willing to pay bribe, he lodged report (Exh.14) with Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad. Said department laid trap on 25/11/1998 and accordingly, respondent was apprehended after accepting bribe and was duly arrested. After investigation, respondent was charge-sheeted and tried by Special Judge, Aurangabad, who refused to accept the prosecution case and thereby acquitted respondent by passing judgment and order on 4/2/2004. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) Learned APP for State would appraise this court about the nature of charge, status of the parties and would submit that, respondent was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under P.C. Act. He took us through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, more particularly that of informant, shadow pancha, Investigating Officer and would submit that, charges were cogently proved. There was demand by respondent and therefore, informant had approached Anti Corruption Department by lodging report and in consequence with trap was laid by arranging panchas and it was also successful. Amount which was demanded was accepted by respondent. The currency was seized from her possession.