SANTOSH S/O SAGOJI GEDAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exception is taken to the judgment and order dated 23-2-2006 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case 2/2000, by and under which the appellant-accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("Act" for short) and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- and is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs.1,500/-.

(2.) The gist of the prosecution case is thus : The accused was attached to Police Station Jalalkheda as Police Constable. One Rajendra Yeole lodged report dated 23-3-1999 that he was assaulted by one Raja and others and suffered injuries. The accused was investigating the said complaint. The accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500/- from Rajendra Yeole, who paid Rs.200/- to the accused. Rajendra Yeole was not inclined to pay the balance amount of Rs.300/- and lodged complaint (Exhibit 49) to Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur (ACB). The ACB decided to trap the accused. Panchas were summoned. Usual demonstrations were given. Panchanama 1 Exhibit 28 was recorded and the trap was successfully executed on 25-3-1999.

(3.) Shri J.H. Mahajan, learned Counsel submits that the prosecution failed to prove not only the initial demand and acceptance of part amount of bribe, the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of the amount on the day of the trap. The complainant Rajendra Yeole could not be examined since he expired before recording of the evidence. The shadow panch Bhaiyya Raut (P.W.5) initially did not support the prosecution. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. P.W.5 did support the prosecution to certain extent in the cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, but then the effect of the cross-examination is wiped out in the admissions extracted from P.W.5 in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused. Shri J.H. Mahajan, learned Counsel would submit that it is elicited from the shadow panch (P.W.5) that he did not witness the demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. The panchanama 2 was recorded in the police station and the admission of P.W.5 is that he was not present when panchanama 2 was recorded, is the submission.