STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GOKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Criminal Appeal against the acquittal of the respondent/accused in a trial against him, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) At the relevant time, i.e. April 2006, the respondent/accused was working as a Talathi (Class III) of Mouza Paradh, District Yavatmal. The complainant-Avinash was in possession of 5 acres of agricultural land at Paradh and by mortgaging the said land, he desired to secure loan from the society. The complainant, therefore, approached the accused on 25.04.2006 for securing the 7/12 extracts of the said field property. The accused called the complainant on 26.04.2006 and when the complainant attended the office of the accused, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 100.00 for supplying the necessary documents. On 27.04.2006, instead of attending the office of the accused and paying him a sum of Rs. 100.00, the complainant went to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Yavatmal and the complaint was reduced into writing. A trap was laid after explaining the pre-trap procedure to the complainant. According to the prosecution case, during the trap on 27.04.2006 in the house of the accused a currency note in the denomination of Rs.100.00 was paid by the complainant to the accused and the 7/12 extract was prepared by the accused and handed over to the complainant. A first information report was lodged and after the investigations were completed, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and in his defence, stated that Rs. 100.00was not paid to him as bribe money but was paid to him for deducting the charges required for securing the certified copies for want of change. The accused stated that before the change could be brought, he was falsely implicated. The prosecution examined as many as four witnesses, i.e. PW 1complainant Avinash(PW 2), Vijay Sedam, Panch No.1, Ashok Mairal (PW 4), the Investigating Officer. On an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the prosecution, the trial Court held that the evidence of the prosecution was not cogent, satisfactory and reliable and, on the basis of the said evidence, the prosecution could not prove that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 100.00 from the complainant. After granting the benefit of doubt to the accused, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (1)(d) read with section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988. The judgment of the Special Judge, dated 23rd May 2007, is challenged by the State of Maharashtra, in this Appeal.

(3.) Shri Mukund Ekre, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Government submitted that the trial Court has wrongly accepted the explanation of the accused that the accused wanted to return a sum of Rs. 90.00 to the complainant after deducting the charges for securing the certified copies of the documents required by the complainant and before the said amount could be returned, the accused was falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that the Court ought to have relied on the testimony of the complainant and the Panch witness, to hold that the accused had accepted an amount of Rs.100.00 as bribe, on the date of the trap, on 27.04.2006. It is submitted that the trial Court wrongly gave undue weightage to some of the admissions in the cross-examination of the panch witness and the Investigating Officer, to hold that the amount of Rs. 100.00 was not paid on the illegal demand by the accused. It is submitted that merely because PW 2 and PW 4 had admitted in their cross-examination that there was no glitter in the drawer in which Rs.100.00 currency note was placed and that nothing was recovered from the drawer, the trial Court could not have discarded the testimony of the witnesses, as being unreliable. It is stated that though an amount of Rs. 10.00 may not have been tendered by the complainant to the accused towards the charges for securing the certified copies of the documents, it cannot be said that the bribe money of Rs. 100.00 was not received by the accused. It is stated that it is clear that the accused had made a demand of Rs. 100.00 towards bribe money that included the charges for the certified copy and hence there was no necessity to tender a sum of Rs. 10.00 separately towards the charges for the certified copy of the documents. It is submitted that on the basis of the circumstances and the evidence on record, it could be clearly gathered that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 100.00.