Ashok Kumar Bhagchand Wardhani vs State Of Maharashtra
2002 Latest Caselaw 938 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.S. Mohite, J.

1. This is an appeal seeking to quash the judgment and order dated 23-4-1998 passed by the Special Judge, Bhandara in Special Criminal Case No. 4/91 by which the accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer R. I. for three months.

2. The brief relevant facts of the case are as follows:

That, the complainant Girdhari Nago Thakre was a resident of village Virli Khurd, and was an agriculturist. On 3-4-1988 the complainant Girdhari made an application in the name of his father in the office of M.S.E.B. for getting electric supply upto his well. In connection with this application he had been to village Sarandi and had met the accused who was a Junior Engineer in M.S.E.B. on 2 to 3 occasions, but was given evasive answers. Later on the accused informed him that he would not issue a demand form unless an amount of Rs. 400/- was paid to him. The complainant paid Rs. 400/- to the accused and was given the demand form. He then filed the duly filled demand form along with an amount of Rs. 660/- in the Co-operative Bank at Masal.

3. It is the case of the complainant that thereafter he met a lineman by name Shri Pagote. The said lineman asked him to bring a chit from the accused. The complainant contends that the accused informed him that he would get the electric poles only if an amount of Rs. 100/- will be paid to him. On this the complainant paid Rs. 100/- to the accused and on making such payment, the accused gave him a chit which he gave to the lineman, Shri Pagote. Upon furnishing such chit, five electric poles which were to be fixed in his field, were carried to his field, but had not been erected.

4. That on 12-9-1988 the complainant Girdhari along with one Devidas Pardhi went to meet the accused. On that day the accused demanded Rs. 200/- for the work of, erecting poles. The complainant Girdhari and Devidas agreed to pay Rs. 200/- to the accused, who told him that he will do their work. That, the complainant Girdhari and Devidas decided to pay the accused Rs. 175/-. They agreed to pay it at village Virli on 19-9-1988. They then decided to lodge the report with the Anti Corruption Department.

5. It is contended that on 19-9-1988 the complainant Girdhari along with Devidas went to the Anti Corruption Department and lodged a report which can be found at Exh. 17. They produced Rs. 175/- in notes of various denominations and -the usual pre-trap panchanama was drawn. The notes applied with phenolphthalein power were kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant and he was instructed to give signal by waiving handkerchief by left hand. Thereafter the police party, accompanied by two panchas, the complainant Girdhari and Devides went to Virli where one Mahadeo Bhagalkar met them and told them that the accused was waiting for them. After some time the police panchas Girdhari and Devidas went to the M.S.E.B, office. There, they met the accused Wardhani and the accused asked them whether they had brought the money. Both Girdhari and Devidas affirmed that they had brought the money. Devidas paid the amount Rs. 175/- to the accused first which was accepted by the accused by his left hand and the complainant Girdhari then paid similar amount to the accused which was accepted by his right hand. The complainant Girdhari came out and gave the prearranged signal by a handkerchief and upon this, the raiding party rushed to the spot and held the accused by his arms. The hands of the accused were washed and the solution was collected. The shirt of the accused was seized. The colour of the solution turned purple when the right hand fingers of Girdhari were dipped and the solution was then collected. The colour of the solution turned purple when the finger tips of Devidas were dipped into, that solution was also seized. Thereafter the statement of Girdhari Thakre was recorded and the usual post trap panchanama was prepared.

6. The complaint was then filed by the Deputy Superintendent of police attached to the Anti Corruption Bureau, which can be found at Exh. 45. The investigation proceeded and ultimately the charge sheet came to be filed.

7. The accused was charged for directly demanding and accepting the sum of Rs. 175/- for himself as gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant Girdhari Nago Thakre, by corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, as motive or reward for showing favour in the exercise of his official functions in the matter of erection of electric line to the well of the complainant and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused was also charged of obtaining pecuniary advantage to wit, a sum of Rs. 175/- for himself from Girdhari Nago Thakre which was illegal gratification by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant and thereby committing an offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

8. The defence of the accused can be gathered from his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code as well as from the suggestion put to the various witnesses. It was his defence that the complainant Girdhari and Devidas had met him 5 to 7 days before the day of the trap and had requested him to do their work early. He had told them that the work was required to be done by the contractor who was busy. Upon this, the complainant Girdhari and Devidas requested him that they required electric supply at the earliest because it was time for the second crop. He contended that on the day of the trap the complainants along with some person met him and requested him to do their work immediately. He repeated before them that the contractor was busy and told them that they would have to engage extra labour for the same and if labour is engaged, they will be required to pay some additional amount. That, thereupon Girdhari and Devidas asked him, how much they would have to pay and the accused told them that the amount may be Rs. 200/- to 225/-. That, thereupon, Devidas and Girdhari told him that they had Rs. 175/- and they paid Rs. 175/-each to the accused, to be paid as labour charges to the extra labour to be engaged. He contended that on such payment being made the trap was sprung.

9. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in the course of the trial and produced numerous documents. By relying on the evidence and material on record, the learned Special Judge was pleased to pass his judgment and order convicting the accused as aforesaid and sentencing him to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for three months. On perusal of the record it appears that the prosecution case mainly rests upon two demands alleged to have been made by the accused on 12-9-1988 and 19-9-1988, at the time of the trap and upon the evidence of acceptance of the amount at the time of trap.

10. The evidence pertaining to the demand made on 12-9-1988 consists of the evidence of the complainant alone. The complainant Girdhari has been examined by the prosecution as P.W. 1. In his substantial evidence, he has not given the date as to when the first demand was made. His version, in his examination in chief is as under :--

"..... .I met Shri Pagote Lineman for pole. Shri Pagote asked me to meet Shri Wardhani. One Devidas Pardhi was with me when I again met Shri Wardhani. Shri Wardhani again demanded Rs. 200/- for the work of pole. We agreed to pay Rs. 200/- and Shri Wardhani said that he shall do our work; We decided to pay him Rs. 175/-. We agreed to pay it at Virli on 19-9-1988. We decided to lodge the report with Anti Corruption as we were harassed.

11. In his cross examination the complainant Girdhari denied the defence version. He denied that the accused told him that if they wanted an early supply then they would have to pay for private labourers to work under the contractor. He denied that the accused told them that the charges of the private labour would be Rs. 200/- to 250/-. He denied that the accused told them that Mahadeo Bhandarkar had got his work done through the private labourers and paid Rs. 175/-. Since the complainant is the only witness regarding the alleged demand made on 12-9-1988, and since he is clearly an interested witness, the court must look for independent corroboration. The Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab has held as under :

"As P.W. 1 is the complainant, his evidence will have to be considered with great caution and it will not be ordinarily safe to accept his interested testimony unless there is material corroboration found in the other evidence adduced by the prosecution."

The aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court were in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

12. The learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that the corroboration to the complainant. P.W. 1 Girdhari can be found from his complaint at Exh. 17. The version given in Exh. 17, is therefore, he produced and is as under.:

"........On 12-9-1988, at about 12.00 O'clock in noon, I along with Devidas Pardhi and Mahadeo Bhagadkar went to the office of Maharashtra Electricity Board at Virli and met Shri Wardhani Saheb. I had a talk with Wardhani Saheb regarding erecting electric poles and stretching electric wire in my field. At that time, Shri Wardhani Saheb said, "If you want to get completed work of electric you should pay an amount of Rs. 200/- each otherwise your work will not be done. If you give me the said amount, then only I shall give you the chit. On giving the said chit to the contractor of Asgaon who erects the electric pole, he would erect the said poles." When we told him that the amount of Rs. 200/- was too much and asked him to reduce it to some extent, he said, "Everyone of you should pay at least an amount of Rs. 175/- each, otherwise your work will not be done". On it, having no alternative, we agreed to pay the said amount to him and then we came back to our village. The said amount was to be paid on 15-9-1988. But as I was not well. I did not go to him on 15-9-1988. That day, in the evening, Mahadeo Bhagadkar came to my house and told me that he and Devidas Pardhi had met Shri Wardhani Saheb in the afternoon and that they had informed him that I could not come since I was unwell. Shri Bhagadkar further told me that Wardhani Saheb had given me message that if I wanted to get done my work, on Monday i.e. on 19-9-1988 I should go to the office at Virli taking an amount of Rs. 175/- with me and that if I paid the said amount to Shri Wardhani Saheb, then only my work would be done."

13. On comparing the version which is given in this complaint at Exh. 17 with the substantial evidence of P.W.-1 Girdhari, apart from the fact that the substantial evidence does not contain details like the date of demand and actual dialogue as mentioned in his complaint there are two other major differences. In the complaint, the contention is that this demand was made in -presence of the complainant P.W.-Girdhari, P.W.-3 Mahadeo and Devides Pardhi. In the substantial evidence there is no reference what-so-ever to P.W.-3 Mahadeo Bhagadkar as a person who had accompanied and in whose presence the alleged demand dated 12-9-1988 was made. Secondly, in the substantial evidence the witness states that the amount was to be paid on 19-9-1988, in his complaint dated 19-9-1988 he stated that the amount was to be paid on 15-9-1988.

14. The version of the complainant regarding the demand alleged to have been made on 12-9-1988 could have been corroborated independently by examining Devidas Pardhi and Mahadeo Bhagadkar, who were alleged to have been present when the alleged demand had been made. For reasons best known to them, the prosecution did not examine Devidas Pardhi in this case though admittedly Devidas was available to the prosecution since he has examined as a witness in another special case arising out of the same incident in which he was the complainant. As far as Mahadeo Bhagadkar is concerned, he was, in fact examined as P.W.-3, but surprisingly as regards the present incident with which we are concerned, his examination-in-chief has only been conducted in respect of the incident which took place on 19-9-1988 and there is not a word elicited from this witness in his examination in chief, in respect of the alleged demand dated 12-9-1988, during the making of which, he was alleged to be present.

15. The second point of difference between the complaint made by P.W. Girdhari and his substantial evidence, relating to the date on which he had agreed to make payment is also of some importance. In his substantial evidence, he has stated that it had been agreed to give the amount to the accused at Virli on 19-9-1988. In his cross-examination he was specifically asked as to whether they were to give the money to the accused on 15-9-1988. He denied that they had promised to meet the accused on 15-9-1988. Upon this two important contradictions were brought on record. He contended that he had not stated before the police that the amount was to be paid on 15-9-1988 but he could not go due to his ill health. He also stated that it did not happen that on 15-9-1988 Devidas met him in the evening and said that the accused had demanded the amount of Rs. 175/- in office at Virli on 19th. He denied that he had mentioned two aforesaid statements to the police and the contradictory portions were marked as 'A' and 'B'.

16. These two contradictions assume significance because they pertain to the second demand made by the accused on 15-9-1988 and the making of a demand is always a important facet of the case in the Corruption Act. It appears that in the substantial evidence of this witness he has given a go by to the incidents occurring on 15-9-1988. The prosecution could have examined Devidas Pardhi to bring on record as to what happened on 15-9-1988. The suppression of this event leads me to conclude that the complainant and the prosecution blanked out the events which occurred on 15-9-1988, which even found reference in the original complaint. This leaves one with the feeling that the complainant is not a person who is speaking the entire truth and leads to further feeling that the complainant is a person who is capable of concealing of material facts from the court. In such circumstances, I find that the substantial evidence of the complainant is not only not fully corroborated but is in fact in some material particulars contradicted by his complaint dated 19-9-1988.

17. In my opinion, it is not possible to accept the evidence of the complainant as regards the demand dated 12-9-1988. In this connection it will not be out of place to mention that details are missing in the substantial evidence and there is no reference about the accused informing about the giving of chit to the contractor. The version given in the substantial evidence is that the accused demanded Rs. 200/- for the work of erecting pole. This version of demand of Rs. 200/- for the work of pole, is worded in such a loose and vague manner that it does not completely rule out the defence version which also pertain to demand of Rs. 200/: for the work of pole to be carried out through the contractor by appointing extra labourers.

18. The learned A.P.P. drew my attention to Exh. 45 which is the F.I.R. lodged by Deputy Supdt. of Police, Shri Gavai. He contended that this document corroborates the version of the complainant. A glance at the version given in Exh. 45 indicates the,presence of Mahadeo Bhagadkar on 12-9-1988 when the alleged demand was made. This is not at all deposed to by P. W. - 1 Girdhari. Besides in Exh. 45, there is no reference whatsoever to the amount of Rs. 200/-alleged to be demanded. The reference in this document is to a direct demand of Rs. 175/-, which is not at all the case of the complainant, in his substantial evidence.

19. In this background, I feel that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused insofar as the evidence pertaining to the first demand dated 12-9-1988 is concerned.

20. The second demand is said to have been made by the accused on 19-9-1988 at the time of the trap. No doubt, the complainant speaks about the accused making this demand when he states that the accused asked him and Devidas as to whether they had brought money? But the making of this alleged demand on 19-9-1988 unfortunately find no corroboration from the independent witness, i.e. P.W.-2 Dashrath Kahalkar. It is the prosecution case that Dashrath Kahalkar was present in the room along with complainant and Devidas Pardhi when this demand was allegedly made on 19-9-1988 at the M.S.E.B. office. In his examination in chief, P.W.-2 panch witness Dashrath Kahalkar did not speak a word about the accused making any demand. His version in examination in chief is as follows :

".......Shri Thakare asked accused about his work and said that his work of electric line be done. Accused said that the work shall be done. Shri Pardhi first paid the marked notes to accused. Accused kept it is his shirt pocket. Thakare then made the payment. That amount was also kept in shirt pocket by accused".

21. However, P.W.-2, i.e. panch witness Kahalkar in his cross examination has given a different version which to some extent supports the defence. He states in his cross examination as under :

"....I do not remember the conversation between the accused and Bhagalkar. Shri Pardhi asked accused to do their work early to facilitate the second crops. Accused said that our work will be done. It is not true that accused said that for early work, some extra labourers will have to be engaged and you had to pay for it as asked by me. He said that the extra amount will have to be paid to the contractor and for this you make the payment. The accused also said that the contractor had assured to complete the work by Thursday".

(Version corrected for incorrect translation in the paperbook from original Marathi deposition).

22. From this, it can be seen with regard to the alleged demand made on 19-9-1988 also there are different versions. While the complainant vaguely stated that demand was made without referring to any amount, the panch in his examination in chief did not refer to any demand what-so-ever, while in his cross-examination attributed a statement to Devidas Pardhi seeking early doing of the work and further attributed a statement to the accused with the extra amount would have to be paid to the contractor and that it was for this that the demand was being made.

23. Apart from this, the version of P.W.-2 Dashrath Kahalkar clearly indicates that Mahadeo Bhagalkar had accompanied them to the M.S.E.B. office and that Bhagalkar was also present in the room when the alleged demand was made. Surprisingly, this is completely denied by the complainant who categorically states that Mahadeo Bhagalkar was not with them at all. This is one more indication that the complainant is a person who is not speaking the truth because the prosecution sought to prove the alleged demand of 19-9-1988 through the evidence of P.W.-3 Mahadeo Bhagalkar. Unfortunately, for the prosecution Mahadeo Bhagalkar in his examination-in-chief did not support the alleged demand made by the accused on 19-9-1988.

24. In view of this infirmity, I find that the evidence relating to the alleged second demand made on 19-9-1988 suffers from several infirmities and it is unsafe to rely upon the same.

25. As regards the evidence of acceptance, it was strongly urged by the learned prosecutor that if this evidence of acceptance was accepted as reliable, the same could form the basis of a conviction under Section 7 read with presumption under Section 20 as also for the purpose of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned A.P.P. strongly contended that the word 'obtains' which can be found in section 7 as well as under Section 13 is a word of wide meaning and import. He relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Krishna v. Delhi State, in which the Apex Court had laid down the following ratio :

"The work 'obtains' in Section 5(1)(d) does not eliminate the idea of acceptance of what is given or offered to be given, though it connotes also an element of effort on the part of the receiver. One may accept money that is offered, or solicit payment of a bribe, or extort the bribe by threat or coercion; in each case, he obtains a pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as a public servant."

26. It was the contention of the learned A.P.P. that once acceptance of the amount was admitted by the present accused, by application of the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was required to be presumed, unless the contrary was proved, that he had accepted the gratification as a motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 7 of the Corruption Act.

27. To put this matter in clear perspective, the presumption under Section 20 is only available as regards the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but is not available as regards the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act. This was also the position under the old Act and is ex-facie apparent from the plain reading of Section 20. If any authority is required for this proposition that could be found in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanu Ambu Vish v. State of Maharashtra, and a later judgment of Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Patnaik v. Shashibhushan, , It is also beyond doubt that the presumption under Section 20 is a rebuttable one.

28. While considering the law relating the rebuttal of the presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, in which presumption was worded in similar terms, the Apex Court in the case of R. K. Dey v. State of Orrissa, laid down the following ratio :

"....Furthermore, the courts below have failed to consider that once the appellant gives a reasonable and probable explanation, it is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the explanation is absolutely false. In a criminal trial, it is not at all obligatory on the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence and for the purpose of proving his version he could rely on the admission made by the prosecution witnesses or on the documents filed by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the Court has to probe and consider the materials relied upon by the defence instead of raising any adverse inference against the accused, for not producing evidence in support of his defence, because as we have already stated that the prosecution cannot derive any strength or support from the weakness of defence case. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs and if it fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down."

In the same regard the Apex Court in the case of Trilock Chand Jain v. State of Delhi, stated as follows :

"......If at such a trial, the prosecution proves that the accused has accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration, the court has to presume the existence of the further fact in support of the prosecution case, viz., that the gratification was accepted or obtained by the accused as a motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 161, Penal Code. The presumption however, is not absolute. It is rebuttable. The accused can prove the contrary. The quantum and the nature of proof required to displace this presumption may vary according to the circumstances of each case. Such proof may partake the shape of defence evidence led by the accused, or it may consist of circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence itself, as a result of cross examination or otherwise. But, the degree and the character of the burden of proof which Section 4(1) casts on an accused persons to rebut the presumption raised thereunder, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof which under Section 101. Evidence Act rests on the prosecution. While the mere plausibility of an explanation given by the accused in his examination under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code may not be enough the burden on him to negate the presumption may stand discharged, if the effect of the material brought on the record, in its totality, renders the existence of the fact presumed, improbable."

29. As against the arguments of the learned A.P.P. as regards the presumption for an offence under Section 7, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that there was enough material in the prosecution evidence to indicate that the defence taken was probable. He relied on a demand given by the panch witness, P.W.-2 Dashrath Kahalkar, who in his cross examination admitted that the accused had said that the extra amount would have to be paid to the contractor and that for this, the complainant and Devidas Pardhi would have to make the payment. That the accused also said that the contractor had assured to complete the work by Thursday. He further contended that P.W.-2 had also attributed the statement to Shri Pardhi who according to this witness had asked the accused to do their work early to facilitate the second crop. He contended that this was accordance with the defence case. He further place reliance upon the evidence of P.W.-4 Vilas Jethe. This witness in his examination-in-chief had stated that it was M.S.E.B. who paid the contractor. However, in his cross examination he contended that the contractor could have entered into the contract to engage other labourers. He evaded a direct answer by stating that he could not tell whether the consumer has to pay separately to the contractor for such works. He further relied upon the evidence of this witness in the cross-examination where this witness admitted that it was true that due to rain, it would not have been possible to complete this work of the complainant for 2-3 months. According to him this was all material which was consistent with the defence version. He argued that if the amount was being collected as illegal gratification by the accused only for the purpose of giving work order, then there was no need to make any reference to the contractor at all and there was no need for the accused to have stated that amount was required to be given to the contractor. According to him the rebuttal of the presumption in relation to accepting the amount was to be found within four corners of the prosecution case itself.

30. I find from the evidence that the defence had made clear its version from the cross-examination of the complainant itself. By the time the evidence reached the cross examination of P.W. 2, it ought to have been absolutely clear to the prosecution that it was the defence version that the amount had been accepted for the contractor. In accordance with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, it was possible and in fact the duty of the prosecution to see that this defence was completely negated and falsified. This could have been done by examining the contractor himself, but has not been done so in this case.

31. The learned prosecutor then relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Madhukar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 CH.LJ. 175 wherein the Apex Court has held that;

"Once the prosecution established that gratification in any form -- cash or kind -- had been paid or accepted by a public servant the Court is under a legal compulsion to presume that the said gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward to do (or forbear from doing) any official act......"

There can be no quarrel with this proposition because, the question is not drawing of the presumption but as to whether same has been rebutted sufficiently and adequately.

32. The learned A.P.P. then relied upon a judgment in a case of M Narsinga Rao v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, 2001 CH.L.J. 515. In the said case the Apex Court has laid down the expression 'shall be Presumed' is employed in Section 20(1) of the Act, must have the same import of compulsion and the only requirement for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. This section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence, and that direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act. The Apex Court further laid down that in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court, can in regard to common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business vis-a-vis the facts of the particular case can draw certain presumption. These are all accepted propositions of law. The ratio laid down in this case break no new ground in the accepted position of law.

33. The learned A.P.P. also drew my attention to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. State of Harayana, AIR 1987 SC 806. In that case the Apex Court criticized the conduct of the accused in keeping mum at the time of stage of the trap, regarding what he chose to say at the trial. This conduct of the appellant/ accused in not coming out with the explanation instantaneously went a long way to make this explanation just an afterthought.

34. The principle laid down in the case is salutary principle. The disclosure of the defence at an early point of time gives it a ring of truth. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact and this disclosure of an early point of time derives its importance from the fact that it was made at an earlier stage and not because it was made to a particular set of persons. For example if this disclosure was made at the stage of the trap, to persons other than police officers such disclosure which would have similar importance. In the present case the contention of the defence is that the disclosure that the amount was required to be paid to the contractor was made in the course of trap itself. This disclosure has been brought out by the defence in the cross examination of the shadow punch, who was present at the stage of the trap. It is also contended by the defence that there is no material on record to show that an explanation had been sought from the accused at the stage of trap. It was contended that only upon asking any explanation that occasion would arise for the accused to speak up and to give his explanation and in absence of any evidence led by the prosecution to show that any such explanation was asked, it will be unfair to criticise the accused for keeping mum at an early stage. Be that as it may, the defence of the accused is that the disclosure of the defence was made by the accused at the time of trap itself and the fact that it was not made to the police officers does not detract from the fact that it was made at the earliest opportunity available.

35. In the present case, I find that the evidence of the complainant is not free from doubt that material evidence relating to the first and second demand has not been brought forward by the prosecution though there was necessity to corroborate the complainant, particularly in view of the infirmity in his evidence. In the fact of this case, I find that there is some material to indicate that the defence version may be probable and in view of this, since the evidence relating to demand is shaken, insofar as the evidence relating to acceptance is concerned, it would be safer and proper to take a view that the defence has been able to establish that the presumption under Section 20 could be said to be rebutted in view of infirmities in the prosecution evidence which were in fact consistent with the defence version.

36. hi the result, the benefit of doubt is given to the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Bhandara, in Special Criminal Case No. 4/91 is quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond stands cancelled. If the amount of fine is paid, it be refunded to the appellant.