This is a judgment concerning two criminal appeals stemming from the same case. The State of Maharashtra has appealed the acquittal of Sudesh Patil (Accused No.1), while Manoj Waghela (Accused No.2) has appealed his conviction. The case involves allegations of corruption related to pension proceedings for the father of the complainant, Tatya Bandal. The trial resulted in the acquittal of Accused No.1 and the conviction of Accused No.2, leading to the appeals under consideration.

1. Background and Appeals

1. Both appeals arise from the judgment dated 23.02.2016 by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Pune, in Special Case No.53 of 2015.
2. The State of Maharashtra's Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2018 challenges the acquittal of Sudesh Patil (Accused No.1).
3. Manoj Waghela (Accused No.2) appeals his conviction in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2016.

2. Trial Outcome

4. Accused No.1 was acquitted of charges under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. Accused No.2 was convicted under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, sentenced to three and four years of rigorous imprisonment respectively, with fines.

3. Prosecution Case

6. PW-1 Tatya Bandal’s father’s pension proceedings were pending. Accused No.2 demanded Rs.2000 for himself and Rs.3000 for Accused No.1 to expedite the process.
7. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Pune, leading to a trap being set.
8. During the trap, Accused No.2 accepted Rs.2000 and Accused No.1 accepted Rs.3000 from the complainant in a canteen.
9. Both accused were caught with traces of anthracene powder, and an FIR was lodged.

4. Witness Testimonies

4.1. Complainant’s Testimony

10. PW-1 described his interactions with both accused, the bribe demand, and the subsequent trap set by ACB.
11. Detailed the application of anthracene powder to currency notes and the use of a voice recorder during the operation.

4.2. Panch Witness Testimony

13. PW-2 Ajit Nevse corroborated the events and procedures during the trap.
14. Described the anthracene powder demonstration, the voice recorder usage, and the actual trap operation.

4.3. Investigating Officer’s Testimony

15. PW-3 P.I. Dhananjay Pingle recounted the procedures followed, the pre-trap and post-trap panchanamas, and the arrest of the accused.
16. Noted the absence of demand specifics in the complaint and discrepancies in the recorded evidence.

4.4. Sanctioning Authority

16. PW-4 D. Kanakratnam confirmed the sanction to prosecute both accused.

5. Defense and Acquittal Arguments

17. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witnesses and inconsistencies.
18. Highlighted that Accused No.1 never demanded a bribe, and the documents had already been handed over, questioning the need for payment.

6. Prosecution’s Counterarguments

19. The prosecution maintained that the evidence, particularly the anthracene powder traces and the testimonies, supported the conviction of Accused No.2 and warranted overturning the acquittal of Accused No.1.