State of Maharashtra vs Shantaram Ramakant Taitwale

M.L. Tahaliyani, J.�This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Special Case No. 2 of 2000 acquitting the respondent of the charge punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the prosecution was that the complainant had a dispute over a land with the adjoining land owners and, therefore, he has requested the Land Revenue office to carry out measurement of the land and demarcation thereof. For the said purpose the present complainant visited the office of Land Record. He had paid the requisite fees in the office of the Land Records and had been visiting frequently to see that the measurement and demarcation was done as early as possible. The allegations, in brief, against the respondent are that he was avoiding measurement with certain ulterior motive. It is alleged that he had demanded Rs. 500/- from the complainant (P.W. - 1) as a bribe to be paid to the respondent and his superior officer Mr. Nanavare. It is further alleged that the complainant had lodged a report with Anti-Corruption Bureau. After receiving the complaint of the complainant, a trap was laid. The respondent was found accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 500/- from P.W. - 1 in the presence of an independent witness.

The State had examined three witnesses in support of its case. P.W. - 1 is the complainant, P.W. - 2 is an independent witness and P.W. - 3 is the Police Officer. The learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent on the ground that neither demand was proved nor acceptance of bribe amount was proved.

I have gone through the evidence of P.W. - 1 Gajanan Wayal, P.W. - 2 Mukund Dhonde and P.W. - 3 PI Pradeep Mane and particularly P.W. - 1 Wayal. The demand was made in the office of the Land Record. It is stated by P.W. - 1 that the respondent had demanded Rs. 200/- for his boss and Rs. 300/- for himself. P.W. - 1 agreed to give the said amount of Rs. 500/- to the respondent on 7.11.1998. However instead of giving the bribe amount, P.W. - 1 had chosen to lodge a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau. After recording his complaint, a trap was arranged. Usual practice of applying anthracene powder was adopted and notes were given to P.W. - 1 for being handed over to the respondent. The money was accepted by the respondent in a hotel in presence of P.W. - 2.

The evidence of P.W. - 1 indicates that the respondent had asked P.W. - 1 whether he had brought the money. It can be seen from the evidence of P.W. - 2 that he did not say anything about the demand. What he has stated is that there was some talk between P.W. - 1 and the respondent regarding money. As such, there is no unimpeachable evidence with regard to demand of bribe on 7.11.1998. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove that the demand was made by the respondent on the earlier date when P.W. - 1 had visited his office. In this regard it may be mentioned here that to prove a charge under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, it is necessary to prove the demand. Acceptance of money by itself will not prove that the money was demanded by way of bribe. Though the learned trial Judge has rejected the whole evidence and has come to conclusion that neither demand nor acceptance had been proved, I accept the argument of learned Additional P.P. Mrs. Mhaispurkar that acceptance was proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the factum of demand could not be proved. It was highly risky to rely upon the evidence of P.W. - 1 that on one occasion oral demand was made by the respondent for himself and for his boss. In the circumstances, it was, in my opinion, necessary for the Investigating Officer to verify as to whether money was demanded. This verification could have been done by sending P.W. - 1 again to the office of the respondent with a hidden tape recorder installed in the clothes of P.W. - 1. A bare word of P.W. - 1 appears to be doubtful. Hence, in my opinion, the appeal needs to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order:

ORDER

[i] Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2004 is dismissed.