Fakira S/O Madgu Kannake vs State Of Mah. Thru. Pso Mulchera
2017 Latest Caselaw 2701 Bom

                                                                                             CRI.APPEAL.248.08
                                                             1


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                             ...

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 248/2008

          Fakira  s/o Magdu  Kannake 
          Aged about 56 years, occu: Head constable 
          B.No. 93, Resident of Dechlipetha 
          Tah. Aheri, Dist. Gadhiroli.                                                         ..   APPELLANT 

                     v e r s u s

          State of Maharashtra 
          Through its P.S.O. 
          Mulchera,  Dist. Gadchiroli.                                                         ... RESPONDENT

...........................................................................................................................
           Ms.  A.Kshirsagar, Advocate h/for Mr. A.S. Mardikar, 
           senior counsel for the appellant
           Mr. V.P. Gangane,  Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
............................................................................................................................

                                                     CORAM: MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.
                                                     DATED:     2nd June, 2017

JUDGMENT: 

The appellant, who was working as a Head Constable attached to

Police Station, Mulchera at the relevant time, was prosecuted on the

allegations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1)

(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in

short, 'the Act of 1988'). The learned Special Judge, Gadchiroli, after

conducting the trial, found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable u/s.

7 of the said Act and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a

fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to suffer further R.I. for one month. She further

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default,

to suffer R.I. for fifteen days u/s. 13(2) of the said Act.

2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the complainant-Pralhad

Mandal (PW 1) was working as a Watchman in Ganga Jamna Macchipalan

Sanstha, Bamanpeth in Chamorshi Talqua, lodged a complaint with Anti

Corruption Office, regarding the demand of Rs.4,000/- on 6.12.2013, by the

accused for not beating him and his brother, against whom a complaint

regarding theft of fishes from the tank at Singampalli was lodged at the Police

Station. As per the instructions of the appellant, the complainant was supposed

to bring the amount of Rs. 4000/- on 17.12.1993. After lodging the complaint

(Exh.15), the complainant brought the amount of Rs. 4000/- and deposited it

with the Anti Corruption Office for using it as tainted currency notes. The

Panchas were explained about the grievance of the complainant through the

Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. Kulkarni who demonstrated to the complainant

and Panchas the use of phenolphthalein powder and sodium corbonite while

arranging the trap. The currency notes of Rs. 4000/- were smeared with the

phenolphthalein powder and kept it in the right pant pocket of the

complainant. During the trap, panchnama (Exh.18) was drawn. The

complainant along with the panchas and raiding party proceeded to the

house of the appellant. The appellant was sitting below the pandol of his

house taking meals. One person was sitting with him. The appellant asked

the complainant to keep the amount in the basket kept inside his house.

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

Accordingly, it was kept by the complainant. The complainant then signalled

the raiding party by cleaning his face with a scarf. The raiding party then

apprehended the appellant. The liquid-sodium carbonate was sprinkled on

the currency notes and the colour of those notes was changed to violet. The

currency notes were taken charge and Panchnama (Exh.28) was drawn

accordingly.

3. During the course of investigation, sanction to prosecute the appellant

as contemplated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

was obtained from the competent authority ie, Additional Commissioner of

Police, Anti Corruption. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed

alleging commission of offences punishable under section 7 and 13(1) (d)

read with section 13 (1)(2) of the Act of 1988.

4. The prosecution in all examined as many as five witnesses. After

considering the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge convicted the

appellant and sentenced him, as aforesaid.

5. I have heard Ms. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.

V.P. Gangane, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. The learned APP took

me through the entire evidence led by the prosecution and the judgment

passed by the learned Special Judge.

6. Ms.Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge is illegal and perverse

inasmuch as the learned Judge has not considered the material discrepancies

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

in the evidence of the witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses clearly

indicates that neither the appellant demanded the bribe nor he accepted it

and the seizure of the tainted notes is not satisfactorily proved. According to

Miss Kshirsagar, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. Per contra, Shri Gangane, the learned APP submitted that the learned

Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant as the prosecution has

succeeded in establishing its case against the appellant, to the hilt.

8. At the outset, it may be mentioned that this Appeal was disposed of by

this Court on 12th September, 2012. However the said Appeal was remitted

to this Court by the Hon'ble Apex Court for deciding the same on merits. The

Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the issue of sanction and held that there is no

infirmity in the sanction order (Exh.42) issued by PW 5-Pramod Jaiswal. In

that view of the matter, this Court is not required to again go into the niceties

of the said issue.

9. Now coming to the evidence of the case, as stated above, the

prosecution examined in all five witnesses. PW-1 is the complainant-Pralhad

Mandal; PW-2 is the panch witness-Nirmalandyu Ganguli, who allegedly

accompanied the complainant to the house of the appellant; PW 3-Pundlik

Gedam, is another panch witness who was standing outside the house of the

appellant when the alleged trap was led; PW 4-Vithal Nandurkar is the

Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and PW 5-Pramod

Jaiswal is the sanctioning authority.

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

10. As far as the testimony of the complainant (PW 1)-Pralhad Mandal is

concerned, according to him, on Monday, in the morning when he was near

the tank, the police patil came there and told him that he had a notice

against him from Police Station, Mulchera. He informed that there is a report

against the complainant as well as his brother-Ravindra, one Niranjan Haldar,

Manohar Biswas, Sukumar. Therefore, the complainant along with Ravindra

and Niranjan went to the Police Station. The appellant informed him that

one Ashutosh Gyanendra Mandal has given a report against him and against

his brother in respect of theft and selling of fishes at Singampalli. The

appellant asked him about the other person. The complainant replied that he

does not know about his whereabouts. On this, the appellant said that,

"Tumchi Gand Fodavi Lagte". The complainant was afraid that he would be

beaten by the appellant, therefore, he called two persons - Gaurang and

Malik. They all requested the appellant not to take recourse of such an action.

To this, the appellant told them he would not beat him but for the said

purpose an amount of Rs. 5000/- was required to be paid to him. On the

request of the complainant the appellant reduced the amount from Rs. 5000/-

to Rs. 4000/-. The appellant told that in case money is not paid to him they

would be beaten and would be prosecuted. At this juncture, it may be

mentioned here that apart from the complainant, the other persons who were

named by him and in whose presence the alleged demand of bribe amount

are not examined by the prosecution. As the complainant did not have the

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

money to pay to the appellant, he proceeded to Anti Corruption Office,

Gadchiroli. On the next day, the complainant deposited the said amount in the

Anti Corruption Office.

11. After bringing the amount of Rs. 4000/- Shri Kulkarni, Dy. S.P. Anti

Corruption, asked the complainant that they have to go to Mulchara to pay to

the appellant. Accordingly, one Clerk of Zilla Parishad, namely, Ganguli, one

lady constable and one other police from Anti Corruption office were present.

A demonstration was given to them as to how the phenolphthalein powder is

applied on the currency notes and as to how it turns violet if liquid of sodium

carbonate is sprinkled on it. The phenolphthalein powder was applied on the

currency notes. On the same day, they all proceeded to the house of the

appellant. The raiding party stopped at one furlong from the house of the

appellant. The complainant and the Panch-Ganguli (PW 2) proceeded to the

police station i.e. where the appellant used to work. As he was not in the

police station they all went to his house. When complainant and Panch Ganguli

(PW 2) went to the house of the appellant, the appellant was sitting below the

pandol of his house, taking meals. One person was also sitting beside him, who

was not examined. The complainant introduced the panch-Ganguli as his

relative. The appellant asked him whether he brought the amount and the

complainant answered in the affirmative. On this, the appellant went inside

his house and asked him to follow him accordingly. The complainant and

Panch Gangauli (PW 2) went inside. The complainant was asked to stand

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

near the door. The appellant then opened one plastic basket and asked the

complainant to keep the amount in the said basket. The appellant opened the

basket by left hand as he was taking meals by right hand. The complainant

put the amount in the basket and the appellant shut it. The complainant asked

the appellant to count the money but he said that in case less amount is given,

where will he go leaving Kalinagar. Thereafter, the appellant and complainant

came out. The complainant gave the signal to the raiding party by cleaning

his face by scarf. The raiding party came inside. The Police Constable from ACB

Office apprehended the appellant. The appellant said that he had not taken

the amount. Both his hands were washed with the solution brought by the

raiding party. However the colour was not changed. Panch Ganguli (PW 2)

informed the police that the amount is kept in the plastic basket. The

appellant was asked to bring that basket. The basket was opened and the

currency notes were taken out. The currency notes were kept on the cot and

liquid was sprinkled on those notes. The colour of those notes was changed to

violet. The notes were taken charge by the police and panchnama was drawn

accordingly. Even when the solution was sprinkled on the basket there were

violet stains. The basket was also seized. In the basket the amount was

covered by brown colour cotton bag. On that bag solution was sprinkled

and it also turned in violet colour. The bag was also seized by the police. The

liquid was sprinkled on the pocket of the pant of the complainant. It also

turned violet. The pant of the complainant was also seized. Significantly,

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

during the cross-examination, the complainant admitted that it was

apprehension in his mind that the police would beat and use third degree

method. He further told the police not to beat them as they were not desiring

beating. The complainant admitted that he he told them to take the money.

This version of PW1-complainant-Pralhad Mandal indicates that there was

apprehension in the mind of the complainant that police would beat them and,

therefore, the complainant himself asked the appellant to take the money.

12. So far as keeping the amount in the basket is concerned, the

complainant PW 1-Pralhad admitted that the appellant was taking meals in

verandah, whereas in the complaint, there is mention of pandol. He told Panch

-Ganguli to remain outside the door and the box was kept on the ground he

kept the amount in the box. He further admitted that he told that he had kept

the amount in the box which is in the house, when the raiding party rushed in

the house of the appellant and caught hold of him when he was in the

verandah of his house. The said version of the complainant indicates that when

the appellant was accosted by police the complainant himself informed that

he had kept the amount in the box kept in the house of the appellant. It is not

clear as to why the complainant has stated about keeping the amount in the

box and not in the basket. The complainant specifically stated that the box

was kept on the ground whereas PW 2-Ganguli states that the amount was

kept in the basket which was kept on the table which was covered by a

cloth. The appellant told the raiding party that he has not taken the amount.

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

Both the hands of the appellant were sprinkled with the solution brought by

the party. The colour was not changed. The panch-Ganguli (PW 2) told the

police that the amount was kept in the plastic basket. The appellant brought

said basket, the currency notes were taken out and kept on the cot and liquid

was sprinkled on the notes. The colour of those notes was changed to violet.

13. PW 2-Ganguli deposed that he along with the complainant went inside

of the compound of the house of the appellant where he was taking meals.

The appellant asked the complainant as to who was along with him - whether

he is a contractor, at that time, the complainant informed him that he was his

relative (Bhatva). The complainant asked as to where did he resides. On this,

the PW 2 informed him that he resides at Mulchera and serving in camp No.

78. The said conversation does not find place in the testimony of the

complainant-PW 1-Mandal, particularly with regard to where PW 2 resides.

14. Significantly, PW 2-Ganguli did not state that the appellant was sitting

in the pandol of his house. He stated that appellant was sitting in the

compound of his house. There is certainly a difference between pandol,

verandah and compound of the house. PW 2 further stated that there was a

table in the house and on that table there was one plastic basket. The

appellant asked the complainant to keep that amount in the bag. The

complainant had taken out that amount kept in the plastic bag i.e. plastic

basket. Thus, according to the PW 2, the basket was kept on the table in the

house and the amount was kept in the said basket, covered with a cloth.

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

Pertinently, the complainant had not stated about the amount kept on table in

a basket and covered with a cloth. According to PW 2-Ganguli,the complainant

requested the appellant to count the notes but complainant told him that he

was taking meals and therefore he cannot count the money. He also said that

where the complainant would go after paying less amount. PW 2 stated that

there was one cloth in that basket. The complainant kept that amount in the

basket and that was covered by a cloth. Thereafter, the basket was taken

from the table and kept below. Pertinently, it is not stated by the complainant

that the amount was kept in the basket and that was covered by cloth. The

seizure panchnama was prepared at Exh.19, after sealing the currency notes.

In the cross-examination, PW 2 admitted that when he was proceeding in the

vehicle, they were informed on the road that Head Constable Kannake was to

be trapped. He however denied that he was not knowing about the report.

15. Thus, there is a glaring discrepancy in the testimonies of PW 1 and PW

2 on the aspect of the place where the appellant was taking his meals and as

per the complainant, the appellant was taking meals in pandol, in front of his

house. According to PW 1, he was taking meals in a verandah of his house

and, according to PW 2, he was taking meals in the compound of his house.

There is certainly a difference in pandol, verandah and compound of the

house. According to PW 2, there was conversation between him and the

appellant as to who was with him, whether he is a contractor. The complainant

informed that he is his 'Bhatva'. The appellant asked him as to where did he

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

reside. The complainant-PW 1 did not state the said conversation between him

and the appellant about enquiring as to whether he is a contractor and where

did he reside. According to PW 1, the amount was kept in the basket which

was kept on the ground whereas, according to PW 2, it was kept in the basket

which was on the table. The appellant opened the basket and asked PW 1 to

keep the said amount in that basket. According to PW 2, the amount was

covered with a cloth in the basket, whereas PW 1 kept mum with regard to

covering the amount with a cloth in the basket. According to PW 1 he has

kept the amount in the basket. According to PW 2 the amount was kept in a

cloth and was covered with cloth, then how the basket turned violet on

sprinkling sodium carbonate indicating that amount was kept in basket

directly. Significantly, no cloth is taken charge by police. Interestingly,

according to PW 1, one person was sitting beside the appellant when he was

taking meals. It is unclear as to why the said person has not been examined

by the prosecution. Thus, the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 are full of the

discrepancies which go to the root of the case and create doubt about the

alleged trap and seizure of the bribe amount from the house of appellant.

16. The prosecution examined PW 3-Dilip Gedam, the panch witness.

According to him, he was with the raiding party. However, he was standing

outside the house when the raid was conducted and when the signal was

given by complainant. PW 3 deposed that Shri Kulkarni and his staff entered

inside the house and others were standing at the door of the house. By

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

holding the hands of the appellant he was brought outside the house. The

hands of the appellant were washed. His fingers were deeped in the solution,

the solution turned violet. The said witness was declared hostile by the

prosecution. On cross-examination by learned APP, PW 3 admitted that the

currency notes were kept in the right pocket of the shirt of the complainant.

Interestingly, it is the case of the prosecution that the amount which was to be

given to the appellant was kept in the right pant pocket of the complainant.

However, in the cross-examination itself, the prosecution has brought that

those currency notes were kept in the right shirt pocket of the complainant.

Attention of PW 3 was invited to the panchnama, which revels that it was

written that the amount was kept in the right pocket of the full pant of the

complainant. Thereafter he admitted that whatever he has stated earlier was

not correct. Thus, it appears that the PW 3 was quite confused while deposing

in the Court. During the cross-examination PW 3 supported the case of the

prosecution and stated about the contents in the Panchnama (Exh.19). In the

cross-examination of PW 3, he fairly admitted that he did not remember the

contents in the panchnama and therefore he had not stated about the same in

the examination-in-chief.

17. So far as PW 4-Vithal Nandurkar is concerned, he is the Investigating

officer who recorded the complaint of the complainant. He identified the

signature of Mr.Kulkrni on the panchnamas as he is dead. Thus, the contents

in the panchnama are not proved by the Investigating Officer as such.

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

18. On careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the witnesses, it appears that

since the complaint of theft of fishes was lodged against him, the complainant

was apprehending that he was likely to be beaten. He had lodged a false

report against the appellant that he has demanded an amount of Rs. 5000/-

which was reduced to Rs. 4000/-. In brief, the demand of the bribe is not

proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant (PW 1)

has also stated in the cross-examination about his apprehension. Significantly,

none of the witnesses who were present along with the complainant when the

alleged demand was made by the appellant are examined by the prosecution.

Thus, the alleged demand made by the appellant has not been proved by the

prosecution. It is well-settled that the demand of illegal gratification is a sine

quo non for constituting the offence. According to the complainant, the alleged

demand by the appellant for not beating him and his brother and for not

prosecuting them. The complainant, however, once stated that the appellant

told him that after receiving the amount from him he would do his work and

in case he could not pay the amount, the appellant would take action against

him. The said version of the complainant also creates doubt whether the

appellant in terms said to the complainant that he should pay the amount of

Rs. 5000/- otherwise he would beat him.

19. Thus, the prosecution has not sought corroboration to the testimony of

the complainant although it was available by examining the witnesses i.e.

brother of the complainant-Ravindra and Niranjan against whom the

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

complaint of theft was allegedly lodged. So also, the persons who had

accompanied the complainant to the Police station and in whose presence

the appellant allegedly made the demand, i.e. Harviolas Khagen Mandal and

Gautam Biswas Gai. Non-examination of the material witnesses although

available makes the prosecution case doubtful, in the light of the fact that the

testimony of the complainant suffers from material discrepancies, particularly

when the seizure of the tainted notes from the house of the appellant is

under shadow of doubt. Admittedly, the theft of fishes from the tank was

already lodged against the complainant and his brother. The complaint

reveals that accused threatened that he would not take action on the said

complaint. However the investigating agency has not verified the the said

fact whether in fact the report was lodged against the complainant and his

brother in the Police Station, in the light of the fact that prosecution failed to

examine the persons who accompanied the complainant to the Police station

on 7.12.1993. No one from the concerned Police Station is examined by the

prosecution where the appellant was working including the Police Patil who

informed the complainant on 06.12.1193 to attend the Police station on

7.12.1993, as per the directions of the appellant. Thus. The prosecution has

not verified the complaint of PW 1.

20. As per the testimony of the complainant, twice the appellant made

demand of the bribe amount in the presence of different persons. On the first

occasion, when the complainant attended the Police station on the message of

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

Police Patil, on Monday i.e. 6th December, 1993 along with his brother

Ravindra and Niranjan. At that time, Harvilas Khagin Mandal and Gautam

Biswas Gai were present in the Police Station. The complainant was demanded

money by the appellant at that time. However, neither the persons who were

present along with complainant at the time of first demand nor the second

demand were examined by the prosecution to support his contention.

According to PW 1, the appellant made the second demand from him after

three days from the first demand i.e. on Thursday, in the Police Station,

whereas as per the FIR, the second demand was made on the next day i.e. on

7.12.1993 in the presence of brother of the complainant Niranjan and

Gaurang Haldar and one Malik at the residence of the appellant. The

testimony of the appellant is not in consonance with the FIR which is a

contemporaneous document, with regard to the alleged demand as well as the

place of second demand.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on AIR 2010 SC 1589

in the case of Banarasi Dass vs. State of Haryana, wherein it is held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that the proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is

essential and in absence of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by the

appellant, appellant is entitled to acquittal. It is also held that mere proof of

recovery of bribe amount from the appellant is not sufficient to prove the

offence.

22. In the case of Ashok Kumar Wardhani vs. State of Maharashtra,

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 88, the complainant was only witness

regarding alleged demand. It was held by this Court that the complainant

being an interested witness the Court must look for independent

corroboration.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh vs.State of

Punjab, reported in AIR 1973 SC 707, has held as under :

"As PW 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."

24. It is also noticed that no verification of the alleged demand of bribe

was made before laying of trap. It was not verified whether in fact the

complaint had demanded the bribe. No independent corroboration in that

regard is laid by the prosecution. It was required to be verified whether the

appellant, in fact, demanded the bribe from the complainant for not

prosecuting him, as already it has come on record that the complaint was

already filed against the present complainant and his brother. Even the

testimonies of complainant and Panchas were not corroborated with the

testimony of Investigating Officer as far as investigation is concerned, as

unfortunately he is no more.

25. In the case of Madhav Rajurkar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

2016(2) Mh.L.J.(Cri) 580, this Court held that no verification of alleged

demand of bribe was made before laying of trap. Since testimonies of

witnesses were not reliable as they were not consistent with each. The fact

that the appellant demanded bribe and same was accepted, not duly proved,

the benefit of doubt can be granted to the appellant.

26. In the case of Tryambak Binnar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

2002 (Vol.3) Mh.L.J. 293, a similar situation has arisen before this court. At

that time this Court expressed that when at the time of alleged demand two

witnesses were present along with the complainant, the prosecution has

chosen not to examine the witnesses. Their statements are not recorded by the

investigating agency. The Investigating Officer had not made any attempt to

get himself satisfied regarding the complainant's assertion of demand from

the appellant/accused for illegal gratification in the light of the fact that it is

necessary while considering the evidence of the prosecution to bear in mind

importance of evidence of prior demand which if trustworthy makes the trap

legitimate to eradicate corruption otherwise we it could be an illegitimate

trap.

27. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Sohan Singh, reported in AIR 2009

SC 1887, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that independent

witness to raiding party was not examined by prosecution without giving

reasons. There were serious discrepancies in evidence as regards to events

that have taken place prior to raid. The prosecution even failing to prove

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

demand by the accused. The accused were therefore entitled to acquittal.

28. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to examine the witnesses

who were with the complainant prior to the raid. Admittedly, the bribe

amount was not recovered from the physical possession of the appellant. It

was allegedly recovered from the house of the appellant. Hence, it is necessary

to scrutinize the evidence on record carefully. It is discussed above that there

are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the complainant and the

panch witnesses who allegedly accompanied him when the trap was laid.

These discrepancies go to the root of the case and creates a serious doubt

about the seizure of the bribe amount from the house of the appellant. There

are certainly chances of planting the said amount particularly when the

appellant was taking meals outside his house. The material witnesses

including the person who was sitting with the appellant in the pandol of the

house were not examined by the prosecution. The learned trial Judge ought

to have cautiously considered the material discrepancies.

29. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of

gratification from the appellant as well as its acceptance. There is no

corroboration to the testimonies of PW 1 and the panchas PW 2 and PW 3,

with regard to the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer Shri

Kulkarni as, unfortunately he has expired. The circumstances under which

the phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and the

demonstration in that regard, there is no corroboration of the testimony of

CRI.APPEAL.248.08

Investigating Officer. The complainant does not know as to in which pocket,

either shirt or pant, the currency notes were kept. Even the panch witness PW

3, who is a hostile witness, is not sure about that. The Investigating Officer

would have thrown light on these aspects. However, as the prosecution was

unable to examine him, the said fact remains under the shadow of doubt. The

prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, the judgment of the trial Court needs interference. The learned trial

Court has not considered the material discrepancies in the testimonies of

witnesses. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand made

by the appellant from the complainant for not beating him or prosecuting him

as well as the acceptance of the bribe amount beyond reasonable doubt. In

view of the above-said discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution

witnesses and failure of the prosecution to prove the demand of the bribe, the

following order is passed:-

ORDER

(i) Criminal Appeal No. 248/2008 is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside.

(iii) The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled.

JUDGE sahare