STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by State, there is challenge to the judgment and order dtd. 22/8/2008 passed by learned Special Judge and Ad- hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.05 of 2006 by which present respondent stood acquitted from charges under Sec. 7, 13(1) (d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) In short, prosecution was launched against present respondent, on receipt of a complaint by PW1 Anant, that when he approached accused working in the T.I.L.R. office for carrying out measurement of land in the backdrop of order of court, it is the case of prosecution that, he demanded Rs.2,000.00 bribe for the said work. As complainant was not willing, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau, gave complaint, followed by planning of trap by engaging panch and giving necessary instructions. That, on 26/5/2005, while complainant was in the company of shadow panch in the office of T.I.L.R., accused demanded bribe, it was duly paid and accepted, followed by apprehension of accused, complaint being lodged against him and on its completion, he was charge sheeted and finally tried by above special case, which, on trial ended up in acquittal. Hence, the instant appeal by State.

(3.) Learned APP, after reiterated the above case of prosecution, would submit that, initially, there was demand to only complainant (PW1) and he had promptly approached Anti Corruption Bureau. That, said authorities engaged independent shadow panch witness. That, both were given necessary instructions and they had duly visited accused, who had called complainant. That, there was demand in presence of shadow panch. That, bribe was demanded for carrying out measurement. That, there was support to the testimony of complainant from PW2 independent shadow panch. In spite of availability of such cogent and reliable evidence, he submitted that there is acquittal primarily on the ground of no work with accused, and secondly, for want of valid sanction.