THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MURLIDHAR SITARAM DATAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. Aggrieved by recording acquittal in favour of the respondent from the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, present appeal is preferred by the State.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is as under:

(3.) Thereafter, necessary procedure was undertaken by the concerned Investigating Officer. The F.I.R. was registered. The decoy money was arranged as per the procedure by showing it's demonstration to the complainant and then applying anthracene powder. Two panch witnesses, the complainant and other staff members from the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, were taken to the vicinity of the office of the respondent. One of the panch witnesses i.e. PW 2 - Dr. Vilas Aher was directed to accompany the complainant. When they met the respondent, the complainant asked the respondent about sanction of loan to which, the respondent told that on that day only, the meeting regarding the sanction would be held. He further questioned as to whether, the complainant has brought as told earlier. Upon that, the complainant told that he has come with the preparation settled earlier. The respondent told that on that day only, he would do work of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant introduced the panch witness, PW 2 - Dr. Aher, to the respondent, as his friend and told that he also wanted to avail the loan. The respondent made some queries and miscellaneous talks took place between them. Thereafter, both of them came out of the cabin of the respondent.