PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is assailing the judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 rendered by the Special Judge, Gadchiroli in Special Case 16/1990, by and under which, the appellant - accused is convicted of offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and payment of fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year and payment of fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively for the said offences.

(2.) I have heard Shri Sumit Joshi, the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused and Shri N.B. Jawade, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. With the fair assistance of the learned Counsels, I have scrutinized the material on record in the context of the reasons recorded by the learned Special Judge.

(3.) Shri Sumit Joshi, the learned Counsel would submit that the judgment impugned is clearly contrary to material on record and is unsustainable. The submission is, that the very sine qua non ingredient of offences punishable under the Act that the acceptance of illegal gratification must be preceded by unambiguous demand, is not established. Shri Sumit Joshi submits, that the initial demand of Rs.100/- and the payment of Rs.20/- by the accused to the complainant is not proved. Shri Laxman Maraskolhe, the Kotwal who could have thrown light on the incident is not examined by the prosecution though cited as a witness. Shri Dharmaji, who according to the complainant was present when he paid the accused Rs.20/- as part payment of the alleged illegal gratification is not examined by the prosecution although he cited as a witness and Shri Dharmaji is examined as defence witness. Shri Sumit Joshi would further submit that the evidence on record is that there was no demand on the date of the trap when the complainant allegedly paid Rs.50/- to the accused. The further submission is that the version of the complainant is totally falsified by the evidence that the name of the complainant was appearing in the revenue record prior to the alleged initial demand. In the teeth of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge fell in serious error in drawing presumption under section 20 of the Act, is the submission. Per contra, Shri N.B. Jawade, the learned APP strenuously supports the judgment impugned. The submission is that no error is committed by the learned Special Judge in invoking the statutory presumption under section 20 of the Act. The acceptance of Rs.50/- on the date of the trap is admitted by the accused, and the burden to prove the defence that the amount was paid and accepted as refund of hand loan extended by the accused to the complainant was on the accused, is the submission. Shri Jawade would submit that this burden is not discharged by the accused.