- (1.) This appeal preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned Judgment and order dated 18th April, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the Special Judge Mangaon Raigad in Special Case (A.C.B.) No.1 of 2009. The appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act. The appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
(2.) The prosecution case in short is as follows: a) Complainant Harishchandra Ushirkar is the resident of village Bhatsai, Taluka: Roha, Dist.Raigad. House No.185 situated at Village Bhatsai is owned by his wife Pramila Ushirkar. The house was in dilapidated condition and it was decided to reconstruct the house. b) The complainant filed an application in the office of Range Forest Officer, Roha (for short "RFO") with request to conduct panchnama in respect to wood utilized in the old house. In November, 2007 after demolishing the old house he kept the wood used in the old house in a heap and started construction of the house which was completed up to plinth area. c) In December, 2007 accused Nos.1 and 2 visited his house and conducted panchmana of the old wood in the house and obtained signature of his wife. At that time the complainant asked them whether he can start the brick work and at that time the accused No.1 told the complainant to meet officer in the office. The complainant was also informed that they accept Rs.1,500/- for such work. While the brick work was in progress, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with another employee visited the house of complainant on 24th January, 2008 and questioned him as to how the construction work was started without obtaining permission. Accused No.1 told complainant to meet the officer in the office and hush up the matter. The complainant met accused No.2 in the forest office at Medha on 26 th January, 2008 along with his son Rajesh and made inquiry about permission. At that time accused No.2 demanded Rs.1,500/-. The complainant told that he will make arrangement within two days. Accused No.1 told the complainant that he will send accused No.1 to accept the money and also informed him that accused No.1 will give permission letter to him. The complainant realized that the accused would not do the work of panchnama unless bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- was paid to them. Hence, he went to office of Anti Corruption Bureau (for short "ACB") and lodged the complaint on 29th January, 2008. d) The complaint was reduced into writing. It was decided to lay trap. Panch witnesses were called. They reached the office of ACB. They were told to visit the office of ACB on 29th January, 2008. The complainant and others reached the rest house at Roha on 29th January, 2008 at 9.30 a.m. Demand was verified. The accused reduced the amount of Rs.1,000/- and told the complainant to give the amount to accused No.1 by visiting his house or in his absence to his wife. Complainant informed accused No.2 that forest guard Patil was not in his house. Accused No.1 and his wife were not in his house and amount could not be tendered. Accused No.2 informed the complainant that he will send accused No.1 to his house. e) Preparation was made for conducting trap and anthracene powder was applied to the currency notes. Instructions were given to the complainant and panch witnesses. Pre-trap panchnama was recorded. The raiding party went to the house of complainant. Both the accused came to the house of complainant on motorcycle. The complainant had talk with accused No.2. As per demand of accused No.2, he tendered bribe amount which he accepted. Signal was given to raiding party and both the accused were arrested. Trap panchnama was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Sanction was obtained. f) Charge was framed vide order dated 19th August, 2011 for the offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act.
(3.) The prosecution examined PW-1 Harishchandra Ushirkar (complainant). PW-2 Vaibhav Pandurang Kadam (Panch witness). PW-3 Kesarinath Vinayak Godbole, Range Forest Officer. PW-4 Chandrakant Thakaji Kende, panch witness for voice sample of accused No.2. PW-5 Bhagwan, Chief Conservator of Forest, Thane (Sanctioning Authority). PW-6 - Dy.S.P. Chandrakant Ghodke. PW-7 Police Inspector, Prabhakar Bhagwat- Investigating Officer.;