STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ALLABAKSH APPALAL SAYYAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State hereby challenges the judgment and order dtd. 29/12/2012 passed in Special Case (ACB) Case No.6 of 2004, by which accused respondent herein came to be acquitted from charges under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmednagar entertained a complaint given by PW1 Pravin, who claimed that, he was serving as a Manager in a firm M/s. Sai Enterprises, who was awarded a contract of laying cable, and said work was completed in 2003. The work completed was worth Rs.7,10,000.00 approximately and therefore, PW1 complainant claims that, he submitted bill for the completed work. It is his case that, out of the above amount, he prepared first bill for 85% of the amount and the second was prepared for 15% of the amount, and it were duly sent to Sub Divisional Engineer, Telecom, who, signed and forwarded it to accused, who was working as Divisional Engineer, Telecom at Ahmednagar. It is his case that for clearing above bill, accused demanded Rs.25,000.00 as bribe. Rs.15,000.00 were paid on 30/4/2003 and remaining was to be paid later on. After consulting his employer, PW1 complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint at Exh.38. On the basis of which, Anti Corruption Bureau planned trap and claims to have successfully executed. After investigation, accused person was duly charge sheeted and tried, but prosecution did not find favour from the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar, who, acquitted the accused. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) It is the submission of learned APP that, there is no dispute that accused was working as Divisional Engineer in Telecom Department, and as such, was a public servant. That, he had demanded bribe for clearing bill tendered by PW1 complainant on behalf of his company for the work rendered for laying wire. It is pointed out that, for clearing the said bill, there was demand of Rs.25,000.00 and upfront payment was made to the tune of Rs.15,000.00, but on receipt of complaint, Anti Corruption Bureau Authorities planned trap by arranging panchas. According to him, pancha, who was in the company of the complainant, had initially verified the demand, which was raised during talks on telephone. Thus, according to him, demand was proved. That, both these witnesses also unanimously stated about the acceptance of currency and pocketed by him. Consequently, he submits that there is both, demand as well as acceptance. He pointed out that, even learned trial Court held sanction to be valid, and therefore, all essential ingredients for attracting the charges were available. However, according to him, in spite of so, accused is acquitted on the basis of minor inconsistencies and variances. He pointed out that, learned trial Court erred in recording a finding that there was no work pending, and as such, there was no motive to put up demand. It is pointed out that, even trial Court erred in holding that no bills were tendered by PW1 complainant. According to him, here, very Investigating Officer has not been examined and rather his typist is examined. Thus, for above reasons, he criticizes the judgment and order of acquittal and prays to allow the appeal.