1 Cri Appeal No. 573 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra Appellant V E R S U S Shriram Waman Jadhav, Aged 50 years, Occupation Talathi at village Gate, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon, Resident of Rasalpur, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon Respondent Mr. T.S. Lodhe, APP for the appellant / State Mr. S.S. Panale, Advocate, holding for Mr. M.P. Bhaskar, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 3rd December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalgaon, dated 19th May, 2004, acquitting the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The respondent at the relevant time was working as Talathi at Gategon, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. He was prosecuted for allegedly demanding and accepting Rs.300/- as a bribe for issuing 7/12 extract. 3. The prosecution case depends on the depositions of four prosecution witnesses. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent does not challenge the sanctity and legality of the sanction order dated 13th October, 2002, issued by the prosecution witness No.3 for prosecuting the respondent. The learned Judge of the trial Court disbelieved the case of the prosecution mainly because 2 Cri Appeal No. 573 of 2004 their occurred variance between the depositions of the important witnesses viz; complainant: the prosecution witness No.1 and the shadow panch: the prosecution witness No.2. 4. With the help of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, I perused the record, particularly the depositions of the witnesses. On the face of it, I found that the prosecution witness No. 1 virtually changed his previous version and almost turned hostile to the prosecution case though he was not formally declared so. He stated that he required certain 7/12 extract and Form-D in respect of his residential property at Gategaon. This document was available with the respondent. So, he said, he went to the respondent for obtaining a certified copy of the document. He said, the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs.400/- for the work. He said, he requested to the respondent to accept Rs.300/- for the work. He, thereafter, on 27th May, 2002, lodged a report with the Anti Corruption Bureau. Accordingly, on 28th May, 2002, a trap was laid and as per the arrangement of the trap, the complainant took with him currency notes of Rs.300/- powdered with anthracene and went to see the respondent at his office along with the shadow panch, the prosecution witness No.2. The complainant then stated that he and the shadow panch entered the office of the respondent and found him sitting there. He said, he inquired with the respondent whether his work was done. He said, to this, the respondent told him that the work would be completed within five minutes and the complainant should wait for some time. He said, the respondent then prepared the document and handed it over to the complainant. The complainant then said that he then took out the tainted currency notes of Rs.300/- from his pocket and handed them over to the respondent. The respondent accepted the currency notes, he said, and kept them on the table. 5. On the other hand, the shadow panch, the prosecution witness No.2, while describing the incident of trap, gave more details. He 3 Cri Appeal No. 573 of 2004 stated that when he and the complainant went to the office of the respondent, he(the respondent) prepared the document and handed it over to the complainant. He said, the respondent then asked the complainant whether he had brought the money which he had previously asked. He said, the complainant then said to the respondent that he had agreed to pay Rs.300/-. The shadow panch further stated that the complainant did not pay the amount. He said, so the respondent took back the document from the complainant and asked him to pay Rs.350/- and take away the document. He said, the complainant then handed over the currency notes of Rs.300/- and handed over one more currency note of Rs.50/- from the other pocket of his pant. He said, thereafter, the respondent handed over the document to the complainant. 6. It is not in serious dispute that anthracene powder was found present on the right hand fingers of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the members of raiding party arrived in the office of the respondent and he was arrested. The learned Judge of the trial Court took serious note of the variance that has occurred in the depositions of these two witnesses. I am also holding that the variance in the depositions of these two witnesses is quite damaging to the prosecution case. But, what has really and fatally affected the prosecution case is that the complainant virtually abandoned his earlier version. He did not state that at the time of trap the respondent demanded the bribe amount to him. He indicates in his deposition that without a demand coming from the respondent, he voluntarily took out the tainted currency notes from his pocket and handed them over to the respondent. Though on this point the deposition of the panch witness is as per the prosecution case, but it cannot be held that the factum of demand of bribe is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled Law that in a case of trap for bribe, the material particulars of the prosecution case must be proved through 4 Cri Appeal No. 573 of 2004 the corroborated evidence. That’s why the deposition of the shadow panch should have been corroborated by the complainant also. In absence of such corroboration, the prosecution fails to prove the case against the respondent. I find no error in the impugned Judgment and order. The appeal should therefore fail. The appeal stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/criapl/573/04/3/12/10/ok