STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PANDURANG GOVIND RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge Solapur in Special Case No. 4 of 1992, this appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-State of maharashtra. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent-original accused under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r. w. Section 13 (l) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under : on 6th October, 1991 at about 8 p. m. the complainant PW 2 Khalil Maindargi was returning from Asara Society on his Luna moped bearing No. MVP-2742. At that time, the head light of his moped was out of order. When he was passing nearby the Industrial estate Police Chowky, the Respondent was standing infront of the Chowky. The respondent accosted the complainant and told the complainant that the head light of his Luna was not on. The Respondent took the complainant to the police chowky and took signature of the complainant on a piece of paper. It is alleged by the complainant that the respondent then demanded Rs. 25/- as bribe from him. The Respondent took the licence of the complainant and gave threat to complainant that if Rs. 25/- was not given, he would not return the licence and he would send the case to the Court. The complainant had only Rs. 10/- with him which he offered to the Respondent. However, the accused told him that Rs. 10/- was not enough and he should come with Rs. 25/ -. He asked him to come to the police chowky on the next day with the amount and on payment of amount of Rs. 25/- he should collect the licence. The complainant thereafter approached Anti Corruption Bureau office. Trap came to be arranged. The complainant on the next day went to the accused and asked for his licence. The accused asked complainant whether he brought the money. The complainant replied that he had brought the money. Accused then handed over the licence of the complainant and he took the money. Thereafter, the accused came to be accosted by the raiding party. The amount of Rs. 25/-was found with him. Thereafter he came to be charge-sheeted.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. The material witnesses are P. W. 2 Khalil who is the complainant and P. W. 1 Shankar who was panch who accompanied the complainant.