STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAJARAM BALU DUKRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by State, there is challenge to judgment and order dtd. 14/2/2013 passed by learned Special Judge (ACB), Shrirampur in Special Case (ACB) No.99 of 2010 acquitting present respondent from charges under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Prosecution was launched against present respondent on the premise that PW4 Deepak, who was owner of agricultural at land Gut no.162/1 and which came to be acquired for construction of bridge, was beneficiary of award of compensation and accordingly, he had approached accused, a Talathi. Allegations are that, there was demand of Rs.5,000.00 for doing work of complainant and finally, on negotiations, amount was brought to Rs.2,500.00, but as complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), who entertained his complaint, planned and laid trap. After completion of investigation, accused was chargesheeted and tried vide above special case and on trial, came to be acquitted. Hence, instant appeal by state.

(3.) Learned APP would point out that, here prosecution case is based on oral evidence account of five witnesses. That, there was demand of bribe to complainant of which prompt complaint was received and then independent panchas were called and both complainant and panchas were given necessary instructions. He pointed out that, both complainant as well as panchas are examined by prosecution. That, they have stuck to their version and in spite of facing cross-examination, their testimony has not been shaken. Thus, according to him, demand as well as acceptance has been proved, but according to him, learned trial Court erred in appreciating their evidence in correct perspective.