Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.B. Pattanaik and U.C. Banerjee

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench. By the impugned judgment, State of Maharashtra having approached the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, the High Court has set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. The prosecution alleged that on 25-9-1986 the accused, who was the Patwari demanded and accepted illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 100/-, and he being a public servant, such acceptance tantamounts to offence under Sections 161 and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused in his 313 statement candidly admitted about the recovery of sum of Rs. 100/- from him and the acceptance of money by him from the complainant PW-1, But he took the plea that the aforesaid amount was not in pursuance to any demand by him as any Illegal gratification but was a loan amount which the accused was collecting in those days from different Rayats and, therefore, he has not committed any offence either under Section 161 or under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge in view of the stand of the accused elaborately discussed the evidence on record, and came to hold that the explanation offered by the accused must be held to be probable, reasonable and acceptable, and therefore, accepting the same acquitted the accused of the charges leveled against him. In appeal against the acquittal, the High Court by the impugned judgment, instead of examining the reasons advanced by the learned Special Judge, came to hold that the explanation of the accused offered cannot be accepted. Relying upon theevidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against the accused, and as such the order of acquittal was interfered with and the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 161 and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

........