STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ANIL MURLIDHAR WETHPATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges judgment and order dtd. 28/2/2022, passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, District Beed, in Special Case ACB No.2 of 2013 thereby acquitting accused from charge under Ss. 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

(2.) In short, prosecution was launched against present respondent, who was working as Talathi, for demanding bribe of Rs.500.00 for taking note/remark of encumbrance over 7/12 extract as he had applied for crop loan with State Bank of India. It is the precise accusation that, for doing the said work, accused demanded Rs.500.00 of which complaint was lodged with Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities, who further took steps to plan and execute trap by engaging panchas, by getting verification of demand done, laying main trap, apprehending accused, lodging complaint against him, and after chargesheeting him, making him face trial vide above special case, which ended in acquittal.

(3.) Learned APP would submit that accused undisputedly was a public servant, as he was working as Talathi. It is pointed out that, complainant had approached him for taking remark of encumbrance over the 7/12 extract for availing crop loan from the State Bank of India. For doing said work, accused demanded Rs.500.00 i.e. on 6/6/2013. It is pointed out that, as complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he approached ACB authorities and lodged complaint. He pointed out that, for verifying the demand, complainant was made to accompany independent pancha witness for recording conversation of demand and later on after their return, conversation was reproduced by way of panchanama. He further submitted that, thereafter, main trap was planned wherein necessary instructions were given to complainant and shadow panchas, however, learned APP pointed out that, unfortunately before stepping in the witness box, shadow pancha, who accompanied complainant during main trap, has expired, however, according to learned APP, another pancha, who was also party to above procedure, was examined by prosecution, but the same has not been correctly appreciated by holding this witness to be hearsay witness. It is further pointed out that, here, there was acceptance as traces of anthracene powder were shown to be glittering over hands of accused demonstrating acceptance. That, tainted currency was in possession of accused and therefore, according to him, both demand as well as acceptance were cogently proved. He would submit that, with the quality of such evidence, learned trial Court ought to have invoked presumption available under the PC Act, but it has erred in not applying the same. He also questioned the finding of the learned trial Court on the point of validity of sanction and would pray to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.