Malhari S/O Vishnupant Rakhe vs The State
2006 Latest Caselaw 1091 Bom

JUDGMENT

M.G. Gaikwad, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

2. By this appeal, the appellant/original accused challenged the conviction for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month as well as the conviction for the offence under Section 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months, recorded by the learned Special Judge, Jalna in Special Case No. 35/1992.

3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under.

In the month of January, 1992, the appellant was working as Junior Clerk in Tahsil Office, Jalna. He was entrusted with the work of Magisterial Section No. 1 and in addition, he was assigned with work of issuance and renewal of hotel licences within the jurisdiction of Jalna Taluka and rural area in Jalna District. The Collector, Jalna was his appointing authority. One Shaikh Naim Shaikh Ahmad, the elder brother of complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Ahmed was running a hotel, named and styled as "Naseeb Hotel" at Badnapur. A show-cause notice came to be issued on 09-01-1992 from Tahsil Office, Jalna as to why hotel licence should not be cancelled. Therefore, on 15-01-1992, complainant Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Ahmed approached the accused and made inquiry about the said notice. Accused told him to take fresh licence and supplied application form. He also supplied challan forms and asked Shaikh Ayub to deposit the amount by way of challan in the Treasury and also obtain No Objection Certificate from the Police Station and the Gram Panchayat, Badnapur. At the same time, the accused made demand of bribe of Rs. 500/-for issuance of new licence. The complainant expressed his inability to pay that much amount and finally, after negotiations, agreed to pay Rs. 200/- by way of bribe to the accused/appellant.

On 16-01-1992, complainant Shaikh Ayub approached Dy. S.P. Shri Kawle (PW7) who was Incharge of Anti Corruption Bureau at Jalna. He narrated the incident of demand of bribe made by the accused and lodged a complaint (Exh-27). On his complaint, PW7 Dy.S.P. Kawle decided to arrange a trap. For this trap, he called two panch witnesses, PW1 Ashok Khandagale and one Raipalli, Clerks in Zilla Parishad, Jalna. In their presence, he obtained cash of Rs. 200/- from PW4 Shaikh Ayub. Anthracene powder was applied to the said currency notes after giving demonstration about the qualities of the said powder. Thereafter, the currency notes of the said cash was kept with the complainant. A pre-trap panchanama (Exh-19) came to be recorded. Instructions were given to complainant as well as panch witness Ashok Khandagale (PW1) that they should approach the accused in his office and hand over those tainted currency notes to the accused if the demand of bribe was made and after acceptance of the tainted notes, the complainant should give a signal to the raiding party members. Detailed instructions were also given to panch witness PW1 Khandagale to accompany PW4 Shaikh Ayub and keep a watch on the activities of the complainant and the accused. After giving those instructions, complainant and panch witness PW1 Khandagale proceeded to the Tahsil Office, Jalna. PW7 Dy.S.P. Kawle alongwith his staff members and panch witness Raipalli also followed them and stood outside the TahsilOffice, keeping a watch and waiting for signal from the complainant.... Complainant Shaikh Ayub and panch witness Khandagale entered Tahsil Office. On the request of the complainant, accused agreed to take tea in a hotel in front of Tahsil Office, Jalna. All of them came out of the Tahsil Office and entered the hotel premises. Complainant placed the order for tea. The accused made inquiry with the complainant as to whether he had brought money as agreed. On demand from the accused, complainant offered the tainted notes and accused accepted the same and kept in his pocket of shirt. The accused promised to issue licence within 2-3 days. As per pre-trap arrangement, after acceptance of the amount by the accused, complainant Shaikh Ayub gave a signal to the raiding party. PW7 Dy.S.P. Kawle, panch witness Raipalli and other members rushed to the hotel and accused was caught hold on the spot. Panch witness PW1 Khandagale disclosed them that the accused had accepted the tainted notes and had kept them in his pocket. Thereafter PW7 Kawle examined both the hands of the accused in the ultra violet lamp and confirmed appearance of Anthracene powder on the fingers of his both the hands. Thereafter, on the directions of PW7 Kawle, panch witness Raipalli took out the tainted notes from the pocket of the accused. Said notes were examined under the ultra violet lamp and confirmed that those were the same notes which were given with the complainant by applying the anthracene powder. The said tainted currency notes and the shirt of the accused came to be seized by recording a detailed panchanama. Thereafter, PW7 Dy.S.P. Kawle visited the table where the accused used to seat in the Tahsil Office and seized the papers relating to the licence of the complainant. Thereafter, they all returned back to the Office of Anti Corruption Bureau. PW7 Kawle lodged complaint in Kadim Jalna Police Station. On the basis of his complaint, offence came to be registered vide CR No. II-2/92. PW7 Kawle recorded statements of all the witnesses and forwarded the papers of investigation to the Collector, Jalna for according sanction. PW8 Bhalchandra Veer, who was then the Collector, Jalna, on examination of the papers of investigation, satisfied that this was a fit case to accord sanction for prosecution against the accused and accordingly, issued sanction order (Exh-45). After obtaining the said sanction order, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Special Court, Jalna against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The learned Special Judge framed charge (Exh-10) against the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7, 12 and 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the accused put forth a defence that there were directions from his superiors for collection of small savings while issuing hotel licences. Hence, he had insisted complainant Shaikh Ayub (PW4) to pay Rs. 200/- by way of deposit in Small Saving Scheme. The complainant agreed for the same and accused accepted an amount of Rs. 200/-by way of deposit towards contribution of Small Saving. The complainant who was annoyed and reluctant to deposit the amount under the Small Saving Scheme as asked by the accused, decided to make a complaint and arranged this false trap against him.

At the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, in all eight witnesses came to be examined. PW1 Ashok Khandagale and PW4 complainant Shaikh Ayub gave details about the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. Panch witness PW1 Ashok Khandagale proved the pre-trap panchanama (Exh-19) and also the panchanama (Exh-20). Complainant PW4 Ashok Khandagale proved his complaint (Exh-27) by which he disclosed pre-trap demand on the basis of which this trap came to be arranged. PW7 Dy.S.P. Kawle, who was then Incharge of this trap, gave details of the trap and seizure of relevant documents from the Tahsil Office. PW8 Bhalchandra Veer claims that on perusal of the papers of investigation, he was satisfied and thereafter accorded sanction for prosecution against the accused. Other witnesses were examined to corroborate the story narrated by above witnesses. PW2 Sarjerao Satare is the owner of the hotel where this trap was led corroborated the story that the complainant and the accused had visited his hotel where the accused was caught hold by the Anti Corruption Burea personnel. PW3 Pradeepsingh Thakur is a clerk and colleague of the accused. According to him, complainant, on 16-01-1992, had visited the accused and after some conversation between them, they had gone to the Tea Stall. PW5 Mohan Tayde is the Naib Tahsildar, attached to the Tahsil Office at Jalna, who gave evidence about the procedure to be followed for issuance of hotel licences and in the cross-examination, admitted that there were strict directions from the superiors about collection of small savings. PW6 Syed Jalil was examined to prove the demand of bribe made by the accused with the complainant. Relying upon the evidence of PW4 Shaikh Ayub and PW1 Ashok Khandagale, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the accused made demand of bribe and also accepted the bribe amount for issuance of licence. The story narrated by them is held corroborated by the other witnesses. The defence/explanation of the accused that the amount came to be accepted by him towards Small Saving is not accepted by the trial court and the accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Feeling aggrieved with the said order of conviction and sentence, this appeal came to be filed, which came to be admitted by this court by order dated 28-11-1995.

5. Learned advocate Shri Chatteji, appearing on behalf of the appellant advanced submission that the evidence on record itself proves the defence of the accused. However, that material is ignored by the trial court. According to him, the evidence of the complainant about pre-trap demand is not consistent with his complaint itself. The complainant admitted that at the time of this trap, he offered the amount by way of deposit, but said admission is ignored by the trial court. PW3 Pradeepsingh Thakur, a clerk in the office of the accused also admitted in the cross-examination that the complainant was asked by the accused that unless the amount is deposited in the Small Savings, licence will not be issued and after the complainant agreed for the same, the accused prepared a submission (Exh-23) to his superior and the said submission also makes a reference of deposit of Rs. 200/-by way of contribution to Small Saving. The evidence of PW5 Naib Tahsildar Tayde and PW8 Collector Bhalchandra Veer also supports the defence of the accused that the work of collection of amount towards deposit in Small Saving was entrusted to the accused with a direction that he should not issue licence unless such deposits are made. Those circumstances show probabilities of the defence of the accused, but these facts on record have not been considered by the learned Special Judge and recorded the judgement of conviction. As such, this judgement suffers from infirmities and needs to be quashed. Learned advocate Shri Chatterji also challenged the validity of conviction for want of valid sanction and pointed out that the sanction order came to be issued by PW8 Bhalchandra Veer mechanically without applying his mind to the facts of the case. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra and the judgement of this court in the case of the State of Maharashtra v. Martand Khanderao Chaudhari reported in 1994 (1) Mah.L.R. 577 and another decision in the case of Narayan Baban Ingle v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1994 (1) Mah.L.R. 780.... On the other hand, learned APP Shri Sonawane, appearing on behalf of respondent/State contended that the defence or the explanation of the accused is not at all probable. According to him, the amount of Small Saving was to be collected through the agents and there was no reason for the accused to accept the amount. The accused admitted the acceptance of the amount. Hence, there is presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that the accused has accepted the amount as gratification as motive or reward. The said presumption is not rebutted. The evidence of complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub and panch witness PW1 Ashok Khandagale, which is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, also proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. According to learned APP, the order of conviction and sentence needs no interference at all.

6. Let us first consider as to whether there is a valid sanction order, as on behalf of the appellant/accused, validity of the sanction for prosecution is challenged. Learned Special Judge considered the evidence of the prosecution on the point of sanction in paragraph No. 37 of his judgement and observed that the evidence of PW8 Collector Shri Veer, who was the appointing authority of the accused proved valid sanction. While assailing this finding, learned advocate Shri Chatterji made submission that the Investigating Officer PW7 Kawle has not stated that he had forwarded the papers of investigation to PW8 Shri Veer. He also admitted that he forwarded the proforma of sanction order. PW8 Shri Veer expressed his inability as to how many papers were received by him from the Investigating Officer. Hence, these facts, according to Shri Chatterji, are sufficient to draw an inference that PW8 Shri Veer mechanically issued the sanction order without there being papers with him. No doubt, PW7 Dy.S.P. Kawle has not stated that he had forwarded the papers of investigation to the sanctioning authority. He gave a general statement that he obtained sanction order and then filed the charge-sheet. There is admission from him that he had forwarded the proforma of sanction order to the Collector, but on the sole ground that he had forwarded the proforma of the sanction order, directly inference cannot be drawn that PW8 Shri Veer had signed the same and sent it back to the Investigating Officer. PW8 Shri Veer who was then working as Collector at Jalna and was the appointing authority of the accused, has specifically stated that he had received relevant papers from the Police Station. He also stated that he had gone through all the papers and satisfied that it was a fit case to accord sanction and thereafter, issued sanction order (Exh-45). In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he could not remember as to how many papers were received by him. The sanction was accorded in 1992. His evidence is recorded in the court in the year 1995. Because of this time gap, it cannot be expected of him that he should remember the number of papers which were received by him from the Investigating Officer. Further, it was asked to him, as to whether he had put his signatures on the papers submitted to him and he also pleads ignorance for the same. However, he has specifically stated that he had gone through the complaint as well as panchanamas which were forwarded to him for according sanction. The sanction order (Exh-45) makes mention about reference of papers forwarded to him. Sanction order also mentions that upon reading the papers of investigation, sanctioning authority formed opinion that the accused needs to be prosecuted and thereafter, this sanction order came to be issued. The evidence of PW8 Shri Veer and the sanction order (Exh-45) makes it clear that record was submitted to him and on examination of the same, he was satisfied and accorded sanction for prosecution. On behalf of the appellant, an attempt has been made to place reliance on the judgement of this court in the case of Naryan Baban Ingle (supra), wherein this court held that before according sanction, the sanctioning authority should consider the papers placed before it. Mechanical approach of sanctioning authority on the proforma supplied by the investigating agency is held viates the sanction. The accused in that case was alleged to have accepted Rs. 20/- from complainant Gopal for issuing copies of maps pertaining to his land. The trial court had convicted the accused. In the appeal, a contention was raised on behalf of the defence that sanctioning authority did not apply its mind and had mechanically signed the draft sanction order. The sanctioning authrotiy examined in that case also admitted that he did not remember as to which papers were referred by him and from what papers, he inferred that sanction was required to be accorded. There was discrepancy in the evidence as to on which date, sanction order was issued. The sanctioning authority gave statement that on 22nd December, 1986, sanction came to be granted and produced on record the sanction order. However, in the cross-examination, he narrated a different story stating that sanction accorded by him on 22nd December, 1986 was not issued on that date, but he issued sanction order on 26-11-1986, but the said order was returned back to him by the investigating agency as there were some defects and he was asked to issue second order as per the draft. Because of these facts and certain admissions, it is held by this court that the order is found to have been issued mechanically without application of mind. In the present case, no such discrepancy in the evidence of witness was found. Nothing is there to infer that the sanctioning authority without application of mind put his signature on the draft sanction order and issued it. The testimony of the witness that he had examined the papers and formed opinion to accord sanction remained unshattered. Same is found corroborated by sanction order (Exh-45) itself as it makes a reference of examination of papers forwarded to him. Hence, the ratio in the above case does not any way assist the defence of the accused that sanction order is not valid. As such, sanction order issued by PW8 Shri Veer cannot be said to be an invalid sanction, as submitted on behalf of the defence.

7. The accused/appellant came to be convicted for the offence of acceptance of illegal gratification as a motive or reward for issuing a hotel licence in favour of PW4 Shaikh Ayub. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the evidence led at the trial on behalf of the prosecution is not worthy to be relied upon, but considering the admissions given by the witnesses, t he explanation or defence put forth by the accused is found probable. The admission given by complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub as well as PW3 Thakur in whose presence accused insisted that complainant should deposit an amount of Rs. 200/- towards the Small Saving supports the defence story. The admission of complainant and other witnesses rebutted the presumption arising under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In view of this contention, re-appreciation of evidence in the present case is necessary to find out as to whether the defence put forth on behalf of the accused is probable and the presumption arising under Section 20 of the Act is rebutted.

The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is statutory presumption. If it is proved that the public servant has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration, it shall be presumed unless contrary is proved, that he accepted or agreed to accept said gratification as a motive or reward. In the present case, the accused admits acceptance of the amount. According to him, it is not accepted by way of gratification, but the same was accepted towards the contribution to Small Saving. Hence, it has to be seen as to whether this defence of the accused is found probable by any circumstances on record. On behalf of the defence, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjabrao (supra) wherein the accused had allegedly demanded and accepted the gratification of Rs. 100/-. However, he had offered explanation that the money was collected as loan amount from the Rayats and not as illegal gratification. During the relevant period, the Patwaris were collecting loans. This fact was not disputed. The trial court accepted the explanation of the accused and order of acquittal came to be passed. Said judgement of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge was challenged in the High Court. Said judgement of acquittal came to be set aside on the ground that the accused did not give any explanation at the time of trap and the explanation offered under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is held an afterthought defence, and the accused came to be convicted. The Apex Court held that non-offering of explanation at the time of seizure of the amount by the Investigating Officer by itself would not be sufficient to throw away the explanation offered by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when such explanation is found to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgement of conviction recorded by the High Court came to be set aside and the accused came to be acquitted. It has been observed by the Apex Court that the explanation given by the accused for receipt of the amount need not be proved by him beyond reasonable doubt. He can establish his defence by preponderance of probablities. Hence, this ration makes it clear that the defence/explanation put forth on behalf of the accused need not be proved beyond doubt like a prosecution case, but same can be established by showing preponderance of probablities of the defence. With this background, the material placed at the trial on behalf of the prosecution needs to be examined to find out as to whether the explanation offered by the accused that he has accepted the amount not by way of an illegal gratification, but towards contribution of Small Saving, is reasonable and probable.

8. It is not disputed that the complainant runs a hotel at Badnapur and the licence of the said hotel was in the name of his brother. A show-cause notice came to be issued to him as to why the licence of the said hotel should not be cancelled. After receipt of the said notice of cancellation of licence, complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub claims to have approached the accused and for issuance of licence, the accused was alleged to have demanded bribe of Rs. 200/-. The prosecution also came with a case that the said pre-trap demand was made by the accused with the complainant in presence of PW6 Syed Jalil. Learned Special Judge in paragraph No. 33 of his judgement has observed that PW6 Syed Jalil corroborated the story narrated by the complainant about pre-trap demand dated 15-01-1992. On behalf of the defence, said finding being challenged, the evidence of PW4 Shaikh Ayub and PW6 Syed Jalil needs to be considered to ascertain whether there was demand of bribe before the trap.

9. PW4 Shaikh Ayub, the complainant lodged complaint (Exh-27) on the basis of which a trap came to be arranged. This complaint (Exh-27) mentions that after receipt of show-cause notice, in the month of January, 1992, PW4 Shaikh Ayub approached the accused on 09-01-1992 and made inquiry about the licence. Thereupon, the accused told him that a decision had been taken to issue show-cause notice to all hotel owners and the complainant needs to obtain new hotel licence for which he has supplied a proforma of application affixing one rupee stamp thereon. Complainant signed it and returned that application to the accused. Thereupon, accused obtained an endorsement of Tahsildar on the said application form and asked the complainant to obtain No Objection Certificate from PSI, Police Station, Badnapur as well as that of the Gram Panchayat, Badnapur. Thereafter, the complainant obtained No Objection Certificates from both the authorities and approached the accused on 15-01-1992. Accused told him to deposit Rs. 100/- by challan in the bank and for that purpose, alleged to have made demand of bribe of Rs. 500/-and complainant agreed to pay bribe of Rs. 200/- on next day. This story narrated in complaint (Exh-27) is corroborated by application form (Exh-28). This application appears to have been filled in on 09-01-1992. There is also an endorsement by the Naib Tahsildar as "put up" and this endorsement is also dated 09-01-1992. On the rare-side of this application, there is endorsement from the Tahsildar whereby PSI, Badnapur was directed to conduct inquiry and submit his report. There is also endorsement dated 09-01-1992 from the PSI by which he recommended issuance of licence. Thus, from these endorsements, it is clear that this application came to be filed in the Tahsil Office on 09-01-1992, Tahsildar forwarded it to the PSI, who returned it back on the same day with recommendation. With this background, let us know consider the evidence of PW4 Shaikh Ayub as to whether his evidence proves the pre-trap demand.

10. It will be convenient to refer here the statement of PW4 Shaikh Ayub about the pre-trap demand as it is.

On 9-1-92, I received show cause notice from Tahsil Office, Jalna why the hotel licence should not be cancelled. On 15-1-92, I met Rakhe in Jalna Tahsil Office. He is the accused present in the court. I told him that I had received show-cause notice and requested him for the renewal of licence. He told me that the renewal was not done and asked me to take fresh licence. He gave me one application form for renewal of licence. He asked me to bring signature of Naib Tahsildar on the said form, and accordingly, I brought it. Then the application was given to the accused.

Thereafter, accused told me to fill the (20) challen. He also told me to obtain N.O.C. on application form from G.P. office and P.Stn. Badnapur. Accordingly, I obtained N.O.C. and returned the application form to the accused. On the same day the accused told me to give Rs. 500/- for issue of new licence. I told him that I could not pay the said amount. He therefore demanded Rs. 300/- from me. agreed to pay Rs. 200/- and told him that on that day I had no money. Accused agreed to issue new licence if I pay Rs. 200/-

This version of the witness makes it clear that first time on 15-01-1992, he met the accused and accused supplied him the application form and also asked him to obtain No Objection Certificate from the PSI and Gram Panchayat, Badnapur and after obtaining the same, he returned the application to teh accused on 15-01-1992. However, the narration in his complaint (Exh-27) as well as the original application form (Exh-28) falsifies his version about his first visit to the Tahsil Office or to the accused on 15-01-1992 itself. The endorsement on the said application by different authorities makes it clear that the application form was supplied to the complainant on 09-01-1992. The Tahsildar forwarded it to PSI on 09-01-1992 and the PSI returned it back to the Tahsil Office on the same day with his endorsement (Exh-28). Hence, the statement of the complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub that first time he met accused on 15-01-1992 and all formalities were completed on 15-01-1992 and accused made demand of bribe of Rs. 200/-on 15-01-1992 does not appear to be a true version. PW4 Shaikh Ayub also claimed that on 15-01-1992, there was a talk between him and the accused in presence of PW6 Syed Jalil. However, in the cross-examination, he admits that a show-cause notice came to be issued to him on 16-12-1991 and it was served on 31-12-1991. Not only this, but he admits that on 15-01-1992, he obtained signature of the Tahsildar on the application form and admitted in clear terms that the accused asked him to pay the amount of Small Saving whenever he likes. The anticidents of this complainant PW4 Shaih Ayub have been brought on record in the cross-examination. Reference of the same is essential here because the date mentioned by him as 15-01-1992 for submission of application form cannot be said to be a mistake. Though PW4 Shaikh Ayub showed his occupation as agriculture, he admits in cross-examination many things. He had contested Gram Panchayat election as well as election for Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly and lost in both the elections. He admits that he worked as the reporter of many daily newspapers. He is thus not an innocent or illiterate person who will commit the mistake in mentioning the date of submission of application form and obtaining no objection certificate from different authorities. Not only this, but he has admitted that when four years back, he appeared for S.S.C. Examination, a complaint was made to the S.S.C. Board that some other person had appeared for him in the said examination. One lady teacher from Badnapur had also made a complaint against him to Village Sarpanch. One Chaudhary also had made a complaint against him that he was publishing false news and blackmailing the people. Employees from M.S.E.B. had taken a morcha against him to the Collector office. One proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated against him. Not only this, but he also admitted that against one PSI Dhole through one Shaikh Rehman, he arranged a trap of anti corruption and he also acted as panch witness in ten criminal cases. Considering these anticidents of the witness PW4 Shaikh Ayub, it cannot be said that he committed a mistake in mentioning the date that he approached the accused and submitted the application form on 15-01-1992 instead of mentioning the date as 09-01-1992. According to him, first time on 15-01-1992, he approached the accused and accused provided him the application form and obtaining no objection certificate from PSI, Badnapur and Gram Panchayat, Badnapur, he submitted the form to the accused on the same day i.e. on 15-01-1992 and that time, demand of bribe was made to him. However, above referred facts make it clear that the application form was submitted by PW4 Shaikh Ayub to the accused on 09-01-1992, Tahsildar forwarded it to the PSI and Gram Panchayat at Badnapur and with no objection from them, it was returned back to the accused on 09-01-1992. Thus, the statement of PW4 Shaikh Ayub that on 15-01-1992 itself, all formalities of licence were completed and demand of bribe was made with him, becomes suspicious, as all the formalities were completed on 09-01-1992 itself, and not on 15-01-1992.

11. The trial court held that the testimony of PW4 Shaikh Ayub about pre-trap demand is corroborated by PW6 Syed Jalil. Let us now, therefore, consider the evidence of PW6 Syed Jalil at this stage. PW6 Syed Jalil is a Watch repairer at Badnapur. According to him, on 15-01-1992, he came to Jalna for purchasing some articles. One Shaikh Majid met him at S.T. stand and he told Syed Jalil that he had work in Tahsil office and requested him to accompany him to Tahsil Office. Shaikh Majid and PW6 Syed Jalil met the accused and accused had made demand of bribe with Shaikh Majid and supplied one challan. When Shaikh Majid and PW4 Syed Jalil were coming out of the Tahsil Office, PW4 Shaikh Ayub met him. Further he stated that accused demanded Rs. 500/- from PW4 Shaikh Ayub and finally, Shaikh Ayub agreed to pay Rs. 200/- and then, he left the Tahsil Office. Thus, according to PW6 Syed Jalil, he had not gone to the Tahsil office alongwith PW4 Shaikh Ayub, but he had gone there with one Shaikh Majid and after the work of Shaikh Majid was over, they were coming out of Tahsil office and that time, PW4 Shaikh Ayub met him. That means, his meeting with Shaikh Ayub (PW4) is not in the office of the accused, but it must be out of the Tahsil office as he has stated that while they were coming out of the Tahsil Office, PW4 Shaikh Ayub met him. He has not claimed that on request by PW4 Shaikh Ayub, he accompanied Shaikh Ayub again and approached the accused. This fact is corroborated by his statement in the cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he has stated that when he himself and Shaikh Majid were leaving the office of the accused, some people had arrived in that office. According to him, for renewal of licence of Shaikh Majid, accused demanded Rs. 500/- and in his presence, Shaikh Majid gave Rs. 300/- to the accused, but an omission has been brought on record in the cross-examination that he has not stated this fact at the time of his earlier statement. He has further admitted that in his presence, accused did not ask PW4 Shaikh Ayub to bring no objection certificate from PSI, Badnapur and Gram Panchayat, Badnapur. He also admits that he does not remember as to whether the accused had demanded money by way of Small Saving contribution. Hence, these admissions make it clear that nothing had happened in his presence, but being a friend of PW4 Shaikh Ayub, he came forward to help his friend. He is also not found to be a reliable witness and it cannot be said that by his evidence, pre-trap demand was proved.

12. The evidence of PW4 Shaikh Ayub as well as that of his friend PW6 Syed Jalil, as referred above, is not reliable at all on the point of pre-trap demand and from their evidence, it cannot be held that on 15-01-1992, for issuance of licence, accused made demand of bribe of Rs. 500/- with PW4 Shaikh Ayub.

13. Let us now consider the evidence of the witnesses as to whether during the trap, accused made demand of bribe with the complainant and accepted the same by way of bribe or whether the payment has been made by the complainant by way of contribution to Small Saving as per the defence put forth by the accused. On this point, the evidence material is of three witnesses i.e. PW1 Ashok Khandagale, PW4 Shaikh Ayub and PW3 Pradeepsing Thakur. The evidence of PW7 Maroti Kawle, Dy.S.P. is that way not relevant because he had completed the formalities of trap. In his presence, the accused has not made demand of bribe, nor accepted the amount also. On the complaint of PW4 Shaikh Ayub, he gave tainted currency notes with PW4 Shaikh Ayub and after acceptance of those tainted notes by the accused in the hotel, on receiving a signal from the complainant, he alongwith others rushed to the hotel and there, he recovered the tainted notes from the accused. The accused admitted acceptance of that amount as well as production thereof before PW7 Kawle. PW7 Kawle is not a witness for demand or acceptance of the amount. Hence, his evidence is not relevant.

14. PW3 Pradeepsingh Thakur is an employee from the Tahsil Office, Jalna. He was a clerk in Magesterial Section-II while accused was a clerk attached to Magesterial Section-I. According to this witness, in addition to his regular work, the work of issuing of hotel licence of Badnapur area was assigned to the accused. As regards the event occurred on the date of trap, he has stated that on 16-01-1992, while he was in his Section, complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub and PW1 Ashok Khandagale alongwith the accused had come to his table at 3.30 to 4 p.m. They sat on a bench in front of him. He requested PW4 Shaikh Ayub for tea. However, Shaikh Ayub requested the accused to take tea in the hotel and thereafter, they had gone out. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused took licence application form of complainant alongwith his submission to the chamber of Naib Tahsildar. Complainant also accompanied him to the chamber of Naib Tahsildar. The submission prepared by the accused is produced at Exhibit-23. The witness has further stated that the accused before proceeding to Naib Tahsildar alongwith his submission asked the complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub that unless he deposits the amount of Small Saving, he will not get the hotel licence. This statement of the witness makes it clear that the accused had prepared a submission on the application of the complainant and also had taken it to the Naib Tahsildar, the sanctioning authority, however, insisted that complainant Shaikh Ayub should deposit the Small Saving amount. Not only this, but the witness has admitted that in his presence, complainant Shaikh Ayub showed his readiness to pay small saving amount. Many other aspects were brought on record in the cross-examination that during the relevant period i.e. in the month of January/February, superior officers were consistently insisting that more and more Small Savings should be collected by the employees in the Tahsil Office to achieve the target in that respect. Apart from this fact, the witness admitted that the accused insisted that complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub must pay amount towards Small Saving and the complainant agreed for the same. It may be mentioned here that though this witness gave this admission, the prosecution did not dare to take any further steps to cross-examine this witness, obtaining permission from the court to show that the witness gave these admissions only to favour his colleague - the present accused.

15. At this stage, a reference to the Exhibit-23 i.e. the submission prepared by the accused before the trap, is necessary. Before the trap, the accused had prepared it and actually took it to the Tahsildar. This submission mentions that application of complainant Shaikh Ayub for issuance of licence needs consideration. The application is accompanied by no objection certificates from PSI, Badnapur. It further mentions that the licence will be issued after deposit of necessary fees and recovering the Small Saving amount. This submission was made prior to the trap and from this, it is clear that the accused submitted to his superior that licence will be issued after obtaining the amount of Small Saving. This cannot be treated to be a fabricated document. Because PW7 Dy.S.P. Kawle, the Investigating Officer, in his examination-in-chief itself, has stated that after the trap, he made inquiry with the accused about the papers regarding the hotel licence of complainant Shaikh Ayub and accused told him that those papers were on his table in the office. Thereafter, PW7 Kawle seized those papers from the table recording panchanama (Exh-20). In the examination-in-chief itself in paragraph No. 11, it is admitted by PW7 Kawle, Investigating Officer that Exhibit-23 is seized by him from the office table of accused. Thus, this document (Exh-23), which was prepared by the accused himself prior to the trap, supports his defence that he was insisting that complainant should deposit contribution towards Small Saving and even to his superior, in writing, he submitted that licence will not be issued without recovery of the amount of Small Saving. The fact supports the defence story of acceptance of amount towards Small Saving.

16. Let us now consider the evidence of PW5 Mohan Tayde who was then working as Naib Tahsildar in Tahsil Office at Jalna. According to him, work of issuance of hotel licence was assigned to the accused. He described the procedure for issuance of licence that the application in the prescribed form needs tobe obtained by the clerk and thereafter, submit it to the Awwal Karkoon and thereafter, needs to be placed before the Naib Tahsildar. According to him, on 16-01-1992, at 11 am, he had gone to Jafrabad and returned back at 8.30 pm. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in the month of August/September, meetings were held by the Collector and directions in writing were issued for collection of Small Saving and all the Tahsil Offices were directed to submit a weekly report about collection of Small Savings. In the cross-examination, he has stated that after receipt of challan, Indira Vikas Patras were submitted by the concerned clerk in the gap of 2-3 days. He admitted that there was a list of fifteen persons from whom amounts were recovered for Indira Vikas Patras. He admitted to have ordered that the licence should be issued to the persons from whom small savings were collected. Letter (Exh-32) shows that written directions were issued in the month of September, 1991 to the Magesterial Section that before issuing licence to the hotels from each applicant, atleast an amount of Rs. 200/- be recovered towards Small Saving and on every Monday report should be submitted to the superiors. These documents as well as the evidence of PW5 Naib Tahsildar Mohan Tayde make it clear that there were official directions to the clerks in the office to collect atleast an amount of Rs. 200/- from each applicant before issuing hotel licence. Submission prepared by the accused (Exh-23) to his superior on the application of PW4 Shaikh Ayub shows that the accused had submitted in writing to his superior that the application of PW4 Shaikh Ayub be allowed and had assured therein that without recovery of amount towards Small Saving, licence will not be issued to him. According to the complainant, accused had made demand of Rs. 200/- by way of bribe. If it would have been a fact, then before payment of bribe amount by PW4 Shaikh Ayub, the accused would not have made such submission to his superior. Hence, this circumstance shows the probability of defence.

17. Complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub as well as panch witness PW1 Ashok Khandagale have stated that on 16-01-1992 after obtaining instructions from PW7 Kawle and complainant having tainted currency notes of Rs. 200/- approached the accused in his office. According to panch witness PW1 Khandagale, after entering in the office, complainant requested the accused to have tea and then alongwith the accused, they came in the hotel. All three sat on a bench. Thereafter, complainant placed order for tea. They took tea. The relevant conversation between complainant and accused about the alleged demand and acceptance did occur as under.... Complainant asked Rakhe (accused) as to when his work of licence of hotel would be done. Rakhe asked the complainant as to whether challan was deposited in the bank. Complainant told him that he had sent his brother to deposit the challan in the bank and he was likely to return soon. Rakhe told him to give challan immediately and he would prepare licence and would issue it on the next day. Rakhe asked the complainant as to whether he had brought Rs. 200/-. Complainant told him that he had brought money and Rakhe told him to give the said amount. Then, complainant by his right hand took the currency notes from the left pocket and handed over to Rakhe. Said notes were accepted by Rakhe. He counted the same and kept the same in his left pocket of his shirt.... PW4 Shaikh Ayub as regards this demand and acceptance, narrates as under.

Alongwith accused and panch Ashok, I went to take tea in the hotel which was in front of Tahsil office. We sat on the chair in the hotel. I gave order of tea. After taking tea, the accused asked me whether I had brought money. He demanded money. I gave him Rs. 200/-from the pocket of my shirt. He counted the notes by his two hands. Then he kept Rs. 200/- in his pocket of his shirt. The accused asked to bring challen, and promised that he would do my work within 2 to 3 days.

The narration given by both the witnesses is inconsistent with each other. According to panch witness, first complainant made inquiry with Rakhe (accused) as to when his work will be done and then, accused asked him as to whether he had brought money and brought the challan. According to complainant himself, after taking tea, without inquiry from him, accused asked him as to whether he had brought money and deposited the challan and thereafter complainant disclosed that he had sent his brother to deposit the challan in the bank and thereafter accused told him as to whether he had brought money. This inconsistency is material in this case. As per complainant himself, accused did not make demand of money, but the talk was initiated by the complainant as deposed by panch witness. Accused also made inquiry as to whether he had deposited the amount in the bank by challan and whether he had brought Rs. 200/-. The story narrated by both of them is consistent with the submission made by the accused to his superior at Exhibit-23 prior to this trap. In that submission (Exh-23), the accused had assured his superior that unless a deposit of fees is made by challan and amount is recovered towards Small Saving, licence will not be issued. At the time of this trap also, accused made inquiry as to whether fees is deposited by challan in the bank and complainant had brought Rs. 200/-. There were specific directions that minimum of Rs. 200/- should be recovered from each applicant towards Small Saving contribution. Hence, this demand cannot be said to be a demand by way of bribe and the defence of the accused appears probable that he accepted this amount by way of contribution towards Small Saving. This is again supported by a vital admission given by the complainant in the cross-examination. In the cross-examination, the complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub admitted in paragraph No. 13 that the accused asked him to pay the amount of Small Saving whenever he liked. Not only this, but he has stated in paragraph No. 14 that after depositing the amount in the bank, challan was submitted to the accused in his office. The accused had not demanded challan, but the complainant gave challan to the accused in the office itself. Thus, he claims that the challan was submitted by him to the accused before they had gone to take tea. If it would have been a fact, then there was no necessity for the accused to make inquiry with the complainant as to whether he had brought the challan. Further statement of complainant in the cross-examination also falsifies his version that the amount was accepted by the accused by way of bribe. Said statement of the complainant is as under.

After taking tea and while waiting in the hotel, I gave money to the accused and stated that let the deposit remain with him.

The above statement of the complainant shows that after taking tea, without any inquiry from the accused, the complainant himself gave that amount to the accused by way of deposit towards Small Saving contribution. The only inference that can be drawn, therefore, is that the amount was deposited by the complainant with the accused towards payment of amount of Small Saving contribution. Otherwise, there was no necessity for the complainant to say to the accused as "let that deposit remain with him". This statement also again shows genuineness of the defence. Panch witness admitted in the cross-examination that before taking tea, there was no talk between the accused and the complainant in relation to work of licence. He admitted that even in the hotel, accused was insisting for challan. This statement coupled with the admission of the complainant that the accused was insisting for deposit in Small Saving and complainant giving that amount to the accused by way of deposit clearly lead to draw an inference that on the pretext of giving amount by way of contribution to Small Saving, PW4 Shaikh Ayub offered the amount to the accused and the accused accepted the same.

18. As stated above, the evidence of complainant and his friend about pre-trap demand of bribe by the accused is not reliable. The demand and acceptance during the trap is not proved to be a demand and acceptance of bribe or illegal gratification. On the contrary, number of admissions of the complainant himself as well as other documentary evidence shows the probabilities of defence that the accused accepted that amount by way of deposit towards Small Saving. Learned Special Judge disbelieved this defence on two grounds i.e. (i) immediately after the trap, accused told that he has committed mistake and (ii) that the contribution towards Small Saving was to be collected through agents. However, as referred to above, the documentary evidence as well as the evidence of Tahsildar makes it clear that there were specific directions to the clerks that unless the amount is deposited towards Small Saving i.e. minimum of Rs. 200/-by each of the applicant, licence should not be issued. They were directed to submit the report of collection of Small Saving on every Monday. PW8 Bhalchandra Veer, the Collector in his evidence has stated that the amounts of Small Saving were collected through Indira Vikas and other with the help of agents of Small Saving. Learned Special Judge because of these facts, held the defence of the accused is improbable. PW8 Bhalchandra Veer was not the Field Officer who was actually collecting the amount of Small Saving. As a District Superior, he issued directions to all Tahsildars and the Tahsildar entrusted the work to clerks. Letter (Exh-30) issued by the Tahsildar to his clerks specifically mentioned that unless minimum of Rs. 200/- is recovered from each of the applicant, licence should not be issued and on every Monday, a report be submitted to him so that he can forward it to his superior i.e. the Collector. From that letter of the Tahsildar, it is clear that the clerks were required to collect the amounts towards Small Saving and thereafter, they were purchasing the certificates in the name of each applicant. Hence, the reasons recorded by the learned Special Judge that Small Saving was being collected through agents and accused was not authorized to collect the amount is not justified.

19. In view of the facts referred to above, the explanation offered by the accused that he has accepted the amount of Rs. 200/-by way of contribution to Small Saving, is a reasonable and probable explanation. The evidence of the witness, referred to above that before the trap, the accused made demand of bribe is not found reliable. The conversation at the time of trap and particularly the admission given by complainant PW4 Shaikh Ayub shows that he paid the said amount to the accused by way of deposit also supports the defence put forth by the accused that the amount was paid by way of contribution towards Small Saving and not as a bribe. As the demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe amount is not proved and the defence of the accused is found probable, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge is not justified and same needs to be set aside by allowing the present appeal. 20. In the result, the appeal of the accused/appellant is allowed. The order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as the sentence for the said offence, recorded against the accused/appellant by the learned Special Judge, Jalna by judgement dated 16-11-1995 in Special Case No. 35/1992, is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The fine amount if found paid by the accused/appellant be refunded to him. The bail bonds of the accused/appellant shall stand cancelled.