STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SONA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by State, there is challenge to the judgment and order dtd. 31/10/2009 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 13 of 2007 acquitting the respondent from charges under sec. 7, 13(1) (d) read with sec. 13(2) of P.C. Act.

(2.) In short, it is the case of prosecution that, for avoiding action, on account of receipt of complaint from S.T. Driver, accused a Constable, demanded bribe of Rs.500.00. Complainant as was not willing to pay bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau, who entertained his complaint, planned and executed trap, and thereafter, charge sheeted accused. Accused was made to face trial vide above special case, in which prosecution adduced evidence of in all four witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court reached to a finding that prosecution had failed to adduce cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, and thereafter, acquitted accused, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.

(3.) Learned APP pointed out that, there is no dispute that accused a constable was a public servant. That, to avoid any action against complainant on the basis of complaint received from S.T. driver, there was demand of bribe. That, there was prompt lodgment of complaint to that extent. According to him, Anti Corruption Authorities i.e. PW4 planned trap, summoned and arranged panchas and necessary instructions were given to complainant as well as shadow panch about the procedure of trap.