STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. LAXMIKANT SHRIDHARRAO PURANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State hereby challenges the judgment and order dtd. 28/3/2013 passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Special (ACB) Case No. 3/2010 thereby acquitting present respondent from charges under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

(2.) In brief, prosecution case is that, PW1 Sudam, who was an agriculturist, had entered into transaction of house purchase vide sale deed dtd. 29/1/2010. For incorporating the transaction in the PR Card, he allegedly approached accused, a surveyor, who allegedly demanded Rs.500.00 bribe for the said work. Complainant approached ACB, i.e. PW5, who entertained the complaint, planned trap by arranging panchas, getting demand verification got done, laying trap and finally prosecution claims to have executed the trap, apprehending the accused and charge-sheeting him. At trial, prosecution adduced evidence of in all six witnesses and also relied on various documentary evidence, which was duly appreciated, but learned trial court held that prosecution failed to prove charges and by judgment and order dtd. 28/3/2013, and acquitted the accused.

(3.) Learned APP would point out that immediately after receipt of complaint Exhibit 26, PW5 summoned panchas, introduced them to complainant and thereafter, after confirming demand of bribe, main trap was laid. He pointed out that, there was testimony of PW1 complainant finding support from PW2 pancha. That, their evidence was intact. According to him, though there were variances, they were minor in nature. That, evidence of prosecution witnesses was consistent and ought to have been accepted by learned trial court but, according to him, trial court not only failed to appreciate it in correct prospective, but also did not take into account the settled legal position. On above grounds and based on above criticism, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.