STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GAURAM SANDU BHALERAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by State, there is challenge to judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 16/6/2014 passed by learned Special Judge in Special Case No.32/2009 acquitting the accused from charges under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad ('ACB') received complaint from PW1 that, he had approached Taluka Inspector of Land Records Office ('TILR') for measurement and issuing consequential map. That, he had approached surveyor Shri. Kolte, who allegedly told him, file has already been sent to Phulambri office. There, on inquiry, he was again told to meet Shri. Kolte and Shri. Bhalerao (i.e. present Accused), who were dealing with the said work. Accordingly, he claims to have approached present accused to provide him measurement map and for doing the same, it is alleged that, there was demand of Rs.5,000.00. As he was wiling to pay bribe, he filed complaint Exhibit 20 with ACB Office, Aurangabad. Verification of demand was done and main trap was laid by involving complainant and shadow panch PW2 and after demand was raised and it was complied, necessary signal was relayed followed by apprehension of accused and on completion of investigation, accused was chargesheeted and tried vide above case, which, on trial, ended up in acquittal. Precisely, the said impugned judgment is the subject matter of present Appeal.

(3.) Learned APP pointed out that, case of prosecution is rested on evidence of four witnesses. He pointed out that, there is no denial that, accused was working in TILR Office and as such, a public servant. That, when complainant approached him for measurement map, he assured to manage it but subject to payment of Rs.5,000.00. That, there is evidence of complainant to that extent. Further, learned APP pointed out that, prior to laying down main trap, verification was got done and only on getting convinced, main trap was planned and even successfully executed by involving shadow panch. That, they both are consistent. That, in presence of PW2, there was demand of bribe and on its payment by complainant, it was accepted and thus, according to him, essentials for attracting charges are very much available. He pointed out that, bribe amount was admittedly recovered from possession of accused and above all, there are traces of anthracene powder at the hands of accused signifying acceptance and thus, according to learned APP, there was strong and convincing evidence.