Kishore C. Sant JUDGMENT
Kishore C. Sant, J.
1. This appeal against acquittal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 17.04.2012 in Special Case No. 10 of 2009, acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment is mainly on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused, the prosecution could not prove spot of incident where the trap was laid, there is no due verification done and there is variance between the witnesses so far as acceptance of the amount. The Trial Court accepted the immediate explanation that was offered by the accused. It is further held that the accused was working as Talathi and was not competent to sanction the mutation entries in the revenue record and thus, there was no question of demanding any amount for doing said work.
2. The story of the prosecution is that the respondent-accused was working as Kamgar Talathi at Sajja Chinchpur-pangul, Tq. Pathardi and he demanded amount of Rs. 500/- for the work of sanctioning mutation entry. When the amount was taken as per demand, the accused is caught red-handed by laying trap.
3. The prosecution examined P.W. 1-Mahesh Bhaskarrao Patil, the sanctioning authority. P.W. 1 in his evidence deposed that he was working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar at the time of trap. He received the papers of proposal for sanction along with papers of investigation. He received two envelopes. One was containing papers of investigation and other envelope contained draft of sanction order for reference with request to determine whether sanction to prosecute should be granted or not. He studied the papers of investigation including the complaint, pre-trap panchanama, post-trap panchanama as well as statements of witnesses and other documents prepared during the course of investigation. The memorandum of accused was also sent along with the documents. On going through the documents, he was convinced that prima facie case is made out to grant sanction. He studied the papers, where telephonic talk of the accused and the complainant was recorded. This witness was satisfied that the accused demanded Rs. 1000/- for supplying 7/12 extract of the land belonging to the accused. He accepted Rs. 500/- earlier and Rs. 500/- was paid at the time of trap.
4. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that an application for mutating name of the son of the complainant on the basis of sale-deed was given to the accused in the year 2007. A pencil entry is required to be taken by the Talathi, which is thereafter certified by Circle Inspector. He was shown the Mutation Entry No. 575, which reveals that the Mutation Entry was already taken on 08.09.2009 on the basis of the sale-deed executed on 03.09.2007. He further accepted that the intimation regarding decision of case No. 22 of 2007 by Tahsildar was also given. He accepted that as per procedure, intimation regarding decision given by the Tahsildar is required to be sent to the Talathi and thereupon the Talathi is required to take Mutation Entry as per the said decision. He could not tell as to whether the accused was appointed by order of District Collector. On confronting with the document, he accepted that the Talathi was appointed as per order of appointment issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Niphad, Dist. Nashik. He accepted that the appointment order was issued pursuant to letter of the District Collector, Nashik dated 24.03.1999.
5. P.W. 2 is the complainant Vasudeo Shriram Dhakane. He stated that he had purcha........