Summary of Judgement

The Judgement

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Both these Appeals are decided by this common Judgment because they arise out of the same impugned Judgment and order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Pune, in Special Case No.53 of 2015.

2. The State of Maharashtra has preferred the Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2018 against the order of acquittal of the Respondent Sudesh Patil; who was the original Accused No.1. The Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2016 is preferred by Manoj Waghela, who was the original Accused No.2. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Judge and, therefore, this is an Appeal against the conviction.

3. For the sake of convenience, in the following discussion, Sudesh Patil is referred to as the Accused No.1 and Manoj Waghela is referred to as the Accused No.2 as per their status before the Trial Court.

4. At the conclusion of the Trial, the Accused No.1 was acquitted from the charges of commission of the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C.Act’). The Accused No.2 was convicted for commission of the offence punishable U/s.7 of the P.C. Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default to  suffer R.I. for three months. The Accused No.2 was also convicted for commission of the offence punishable U/s.13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the P.C.Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. The prosecution case is that, PW-1 Tatya Bandal was working with the Railway Police as a police constable. His father Laxman Bandal had retired from the Railway Police as Police Shipai. His pension proceedings were pending for quite some time. The Accused No.2, working as a Senior Clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police (Railway), Pune, demanded Rs.2000/- for himself and Rs.3000/- for the Accused No.1; who was the Head Clerk in the same department, for sending the proposal of pension by hand to the Audit Department. The complainant-PW-1 did not want to make that payment. Therefore, he approached the AntiCorruption Bureau, Pune and gave his complaint. PW-3, the Investigating Officer Pingle arranged to conduct a trap by calling two panchas. The informant was carrying Rs.5000/- in 10 currency notes of Rs.500/- each. The anthracene powder was applied to  those notes. The demand was verified in the presence of one of the panchas. The conversation was recorded. After the verification of the demand, the complainant-PW-1 and the panchas-PW-2 again approached the Accused No.2. They went to a canteen. The Accused No.2 accepted Rs.2000/- in those currency notes. The Accused No.2 called the Accused No.1. The Accused No.1 accepted Rs.3000/- from the complainant-PW-1. After that, PW-1 gave a prearranged signal. The raiding party, including the other panchas and PW-3 rushed there and caught both the accused. Their hands and the clothes were examined under the ultraviolet light. Their hands and the clothes were found to have traces of anthracene powder. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged. The investigation was carried out and both the accused faced the trial before the learned Trial Judge.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 Tatya Bandal as the complainant, PW-2 Ajit Nevse as one of the panchas, PW-3 Dhananjay Pingle, P.I., as the Investigating Officer, and PW-4 D. Kanakratnam, as the Sanctioning Officer.

7. The defence of the accused was of total denial. After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the Accused No.1, but he convicted and sentenced the Accused No.2, as mentioned earlier.

8. PW-1 Tatya Bandal has deposed that, he was working as a Police Constable with the Railway Police. Laxman Bandal was his father. He had retired as Police Shipai from the Railway Police. His proceedings for the pensionary benefits were pending with the Police Superintendent office, Railway, Pune. For that purpose, he had met both the accused on many occasions and he had contacted them on mobile phone on number of occasions.

9. On 10.11.2014, he had telephonically called the Accused No.2 asking about his father’s pension. At that time, the Accused No.2 had told him that, he had spent Rs.2000/- in the Treasury office and that PW-1 should pay him Rs.2000/- which he had spent. The Accused No.2 further asked him to pay Rs.3000/- to the Accused No.1. The Accused No.2 further suggested to PW-1 that, he should carry the documents of those proceedings to Mumbai for  Audit. PW-1 did not wish to pay the bribe amount. Therefore, he went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.), Pune, on 11.11.2014, at 9:30a.m. and gave a complaint against the accused. PW-3 P. I. Pingle recorded his complaint. The complaint is produced on record at Exhibit-16. PW-3 Pingle then called the two panchas Ajit Nevse and Balaji Palaskar. PW-1 was introduced to them. Both of them read the complaint and signed it. After that, PW-1 produced 10 currency notes of Rs.500/- each. One constable from the A.C.B. office applied anthracene powder to those notes. The blue shine was seen when those notes were held under the ultraviolet light. After that, the same constable folded those notes and kept them in PW-1’s right side pocket of the pant. PW-1 was instructed that, till the demand was made the currency notes should not be touched. One more constable demonstrated the functioning of the digital voice recorder. PW-1 was instructed to start the speaker on his phone, if there was any telephonic conversation with the accused. He was also instructed to spend necessary amount for having tea and snacks. If the accused accepted the bribe amount, he was supposed to give a signal by moving his left hand on his head. A new memory card was inserted in the voice recorder. It was switched on and concealed in PW-1’ shirt’s pocket. That was around 11:00 to 11:20a.m. PW-1 and the said pancha were sent to the office of the accused.

10. PW-1 Tatya and PW-2 Nevse went near the table of the Accused No.2. PW-1 discussed about the pension proceedings of his father with the Accused No.2. At that time, the accused No.2 told him that the proceedings of his father’s pension were already signed on 10th October. The Accused No.2 showed him those proceedings. After that, the Accused No.2 asked PW-1 as to whether he had brought Rs.2000/-; which the Accused No.2 had spent on PW-1’s proceedings. At that time, PW-1 told him that, he had not brought the amount, but he would get it. The Accused No.2 told him that, he would pay Rs.1500/- in the Treasury office and would keep Rs.500/- with him. At that time, PW-1 asked him regarding the amount which was meant for the Accused No.1. The Accused No.2 called the Accused No.1, who came near them. At that time, the Accused No.2 asked the Accused No.1 as to how much amount should be taken for him. The Accused No.1 told PW-1 to pay as per his wish. Saying this, the Accused No.1 left. According to PW-1, those proceedings were delayed because of the accused No.2. PW-2 has further deposed that, the Accused No.2 handed over the papers by way of hamdast to PW-1 for the purposes of taking them to the office in Mumbai. PW-1 told him that, he would pay the money and then would take the papers. At that time, the Accused No.2 insisted that, he trusted him and that PW-1 should take the papers, otherwise they would be lost. During all this conversation, PW-2 Nevse was with PW-1 and was listening the conversation.

11. After that, PW-1 came out with the papers of his father’s pension. PW-1 and PW-2 went to the spot where the officers of the A.C.B. were waiting for them. PW-3 Pingle took the voice recorder. The officer heard the conversation. The demand was verified and then they decided to lay a trap.

12. PW-3 Pingle again switched on the voice recorder and concealed it in the shirt pocket of PW-1. PW-1 and PW-2 went back to meet the Accused No.1. That was around 12:00p.m. They went  to the accused No.2’s table. He suggested that, all of them should go to the canteen and have tea. Thereafter, all three of them went to the canteen. The Accused No.2 placed an order for tea. He asked PW-1 whether he had brought Rs.2000/-. PW-1 told him that he had brought that money. He removed four currency notes of Rs.500/- from his right pocket and handed over to the Accused No.2. The Accused No.2 accepted them with his right hand and kept them in the right back pocket of his pant. PW-1 asked him about the Accused No.1. Therefore, the Accused No.2 went to call the Accused No.1. Both the accused came to the canteen. PW-1 asked to Accused No.1 as to how much he should pay. Then he removed the balance amount of Rs.3000/- from the right pocket of his pant. At that time, the Accused No.1 looked at the Accused No.2. The Accused No.2 told the Accused No.1 that he had accepted Rs.2000/-. The accused No.1 said that they can wait. But the Accused No.2 gave signal to the Accused No.1 to accept the amount. Accordingly, the Accused No.1 accepted the amount with his right hand and kept those notes with his left hand in the front left side pocket of his pant. PW-1 went out and gave a prearranged ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2024 20:00:24 ::: 10 of 29 1-apeal-157-16 & 325-18 (J) signal. The raiding party members rushed to the canteen. PW-1 was asked to wait outside. He told the raiding party that Rs.2000/- was paid to the Accused No.2 and Rs.3000/- was paid to the Accused No.1. PW-1’s hands were seen under the ultraviolet light. There were traces of anthracene powder on his both hands. According to him, the conversation with the accused was recorded in the recorder. PW-1 identified both the accused and the currency notes in the Court.

In the cross-examination, PW-1 accepted that his father was absent from his service for about 14 years and 8 months before his retirement. At the time of his retirement also he was absent. PW-1 had made an application dated 02.01.2007 for pension. From that date, till 2014 the documentation was not completed and therefore, the work was not done. PW-1’s father was transferred to the Police Commissioner’s office, though, he was absent. The records regarding that service were not made available and, therefore, the Police Commissioner’s office had obtained those papers from PW-1’s father. About 5 to 7 years were spent in that. PW-1 had even approached the Administrative  Tribunal in the year 2013. The Tribunal had directed the authorities to expedite those proceeding. PW-1 had visited the office of the accused for about 25 to 50 times. The Home Ministry was not taking the decision on those proceedings and, therefore, he had approached the Tribunal. He has further deposed that, when he met the Accused, at that time, there were 2 to 4 other employees in his office. PW-1 asked the Accused No.2 as to who had paid in the Treasury office. When all of them went to the canteen, PW-1 met one person who knew him. He called PW-1 to his table, but PW-1 had refused. Within 15 to 20 minutes after going to the canteen, the prearranged signal was made by PW-1. He did not know as to who paid for the tea. When the raiding party entered the canteen, one of the accused was having tea. He denied the suggestion that, he was agitated because his father’s pension proceedings were not getting decided and he was holding the accused responsible for that delay.

13. PW-2 Ajit Nevse was one of the panchas who had accompanied PW-1. He has deposed that on 10.11.2014, at around 4:30p.m. to 4:45p.m., he had gone to the A.C.B. office, Pune at the instance of his seniors. He met the Officer Shri. Raut who told PW-2 and the other pancha to remain present in the office of A.C.B. at 9:30a.m. on the next day. Accordingly, they went there. They were sent to PW-3 P.I. Pingle. PW-1 was present there. PW-2 and the other pancha read the complaint and signed it. PW-1 then described the use of anthracene powder and how the currency notes were smeared with the anthracene powder. Those notes were kept in the right side pant pocket of PW-1. He prepared the pre-trap panchanama. It is produced on record at Exhibit-18. At around 11:15a.m. they left the A.C.B. office to go to the office of the accused. He has then deposed about the voice recorder and visit to the office of the accused. It is further deposed that, PW-1 and PW-2 went near the table of the Accused No.2. At that time, the Accused No.2 demanded the money which he had spent. PW-2 asked him the figure. At that time, the Accused No.2 asked him to pay Rs.2000/- and that he could pay more as per his wish. Ultimately, it was negotiated to Rs.3000/-. Thereafter, PW-1 and PW-2 went back to the spot where the A.C.B. officers were waiting. They verified the conversation recorded in the voice recorder. After that, ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2024 20:00:24 ::: 13 of 29 1-apeal-157-16 & 325-18 (J) they decided to lay a trap. PW-1 and PW-2 again went to the office of the accused. As per the suggestion of the Accused No.2 they went to the canteen. While they were taking tea, the complainant gave Rs.2000/- to the Accused No.2 which he accepted with his right hand and kept in the right side pocket of his jeans. Then the Accused No.2 called the Accused No.1 and suggested to him by giving a signal to accept the money. PW-1 then gave Rs.3000/- in the hands of the Accused No.1, who accepted it with his right hand and kept it in his front left side pocket of his pant with left hand. After that, PW-1 gave the pre-arranged signal. The raiding party rushed there. PW-2 told them about the incident. The hands and fingers of both the accused were seen. There was anthracene powder on their hands. The other pancha took search of the person of the Accused No.2. Rs.2000/- were found in the front side pant pocket. The Accused No.1’s search was taken. The six currency notes of Rs.500/- were found in his pant pocket. The serial numbers of the notes were compared with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap panchanama. They matched. The recorded conversations in the recorder were heard. Its script was ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2024 20:00:24 ::: 14 of 29 1-apeal-157-16 & 325-18 (J) prepared. The post trap panchanama was prepared. It is produced on record at Exhibit-19. The accused were arrested on 17.11.2014. The investigating officer took the voice samples of both the accused and prepared the panchanama. That panchanama is produced on record at Exhibit-23.

In the cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that on 10.11.2014 they had met Shri. Raut in his office. He asked them to come on the next day. On 11.11.2014, they reached the A.C.B. office at 10:00a.m.. PW-3 had specifically told PW-1 not to bring up the subject of demand of bribe amount on his own. When PW-1 and PW-2 went to the office of the Accused No.2, immediately, accused No.2 handed over the pension papers to PW-1 and obtained his signature in the register. PW-2 has specifically deposed that, till the papers were handed over to PW-1, the Accused No.2 did not demand any money. At that time, there was sufficient crowd in the office of the Accused No.2. PW-2 has specifically deposed that, PW-1 himself had brought up the subject of making payment. At that time, the Accused No.2 told PW-1 to have conversation with the concerned lady from the Treasury  office. Significantly, PW-2 has further deposed that, during the conversation, PW-1 was repeatedly bringing up the subject of payment and the Accused No.2 was telling him that he would consider it later. PW-1 insisted that, since he did not get any leave, therefore, the Accused No.2 should finalise it on the same day. This conversation was going on for about 10 minutes. He has very importantly deposed that, till they stepped out, there was no demand made for handing over hamdast of his pension papers. PW-2 has further deposed that the complainant had kept Rs.2000/- at one place and Rs.3000/- at another place. But, he did not remember the exact places. About the actual trap, he has deposed that, after reaching the canteen, they had tea. Ten minutes after that, PW-1 gave a prearranged signal. At that time, there were about 4 to 5 customers. It was a small canteen and there were no tables and chairs in the said canteen. He further admitted that, in his presence, the accused No.1, on his own, did not demand any bribe. He further admitted that, he had acted as a pancha in one case earlier. The post trap panchanama was produced on record at Exhibit-19. It mentions that, right hand fingers of the Accused ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2024  No.2 showed traces of the anthracene powder. The anthracene powder was also seen on his back right side pocket of the pant. Both the hands of the Accused No.1 showed traces of the anthracene powder and his pant also showed presence of the anthracene powder on the front left side pocket. The post-trap panchanama also mentions that, PW-1 had the papers of his father’s pension with him. The photocopies of those papers were taken in charge by the officers.

14. The prosecution has produced a panchanama Exhibit-23 about taking the voice samples of the Accused Nos.1 and 2. Significantly, the prosecution has not produced the actual recorded conversation about the demand. They have not even produced the transcript of that demand. They have not produced the report, if any, of the comparison of the voice samples with the recorded conversations which had taken place on 11.11.2014.

15. PW-3 P.I. Dhananjay Pingle was working with the A.C.B., Pune. On 11.11.2014, at about 10:00a.m., PW-1 came to their office and gave his complaint. The P.I. Raut had asked for two  panchas in connection with a different case. Accordingly, two panchas Ajit Nevse and Balaji Palaskar were present in the office. PW-3 decided to use their services for this case. Thereafter he has deposed about the demonstration of the anthracene powder and about the instructions given to PW-1. There was a specific instruction that, unless the demand was made, the currency notes were not be touched. He has deposed about the preparation of the pre-trap panchanama and verification of the demand. As far as, the trap is concerned, he has deposed that, all of them went near the canteen. They waited at different places. PW-1, PW-2 and an unknown person (i.e. accused No.2 in this case) had gone to the canteen. PW-1 removed some of the notes from the pocket and handed over to the Accused No.2; which he kept in the back side right pocket of his pant. The Accused No.2 went out of the canteen, but still PW-1 did not give the pre-arranged signal. The Accused No.2 returned with the Accused No.1, who accepted the other notes from PW-1. Thereafter, PW-1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. Importantly, he has deposed that, an unknown person i.e. the Accused No.2 had accepted the money, had counted  the notes and had kept them in the pant pocket of his right side. Thereafter, the hands of the accused were seen under the ultraviolet light. The Accused No.2’s right hand showed presence of the anthracene powder. His pant pocket also showed presence of the anthracene powder. After that, the voice recorder was heard. The transcript was prepared. Everything was seized. PW-3 then lodged the F.I.R., which is produced on record at Exhibit-26. The C.R.No.3139 of 2014 was registered at Khadki police station, Pune, at 7:50p.m.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that, PW-1 had not stated in his complaint that the Accused No.2 was avoiding to do his work. He admitted that, when PW-1 was sent for verification of the demand, at that time, the Accused No.2 had already handed over the papers to him. At least 30 to 40 people had visited the canteen during the period of trap. 16. PW-4 D. Kanakratnam is the sanctioning authority who had given the sanction to prosecute both the accused. The sanction is produced at Exhibit-32. PW-4 was the Additional Director  General of Police, Railway, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. There is no serious dispute about his authority and the sanction accorded by him. This, in short, is the prosecution evidence.

17. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. PW-1 and PW-2 are not reliable witnesses. Their deposition is at variance with each other. There are lot of contradictions in the basic description of the events. PW-1 was holding grudge against the accused, therefore, they are falsely implicated. The Accused No.1 had never demanded any bribe amount. The Accused No.1 was acquitted on the same allegations, therefore, the Accused No.2 also be acquitted. The learned Trial Judge has taken a possible view in acquitting the Accused No.1 and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the Judgment and order of acquittal.

18. The Accused No.2 had already handed over the documents, therefore, there was no question of making payment  after the work was done. The evidence regarding the pre-trap procedure and the post-trap procedure is extremely doubtful. The transcript of the recorded conversation; either at the time of verification or at the time of conducting the trap is not produced on record. Neither the recording of the verification of demand nor the recording at the time of acceptance of the money, nor the transcript is part of the record of this trial. The voice samples were taken, but thereafter there is no connecting piece of evidence of the voice of the accused and the alleged conversation. Therefore, neither the demand is proved nor the acceptance is proved. PW-3’s evidence is also not without suspicion. He has deposed that the Accused No.2, to whom he has described as an unknown person, had first gone to the canteen. He was obviously referring to the accused No.2. But he deposed that, the said person had counted the money. Therefore, the anthracene powder should have appeared on his both hands, but that is not the prosecution case. PW-1 was carrying the documents regarding his father’s pension, but those documents did not show traces of the anthracene powder. The panchas deposed that the complainant had kept the  amount of Rs.2000/- and Rs.3000/- at different places. This again is contrary to the prosecution case. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 were not even asking for the money and yet PW-1 was bringing up the subject of making the payment. Therefore, this establishes that by some way PW-1 wanted to trap both the accused. Considering all these circumstances, the acquittal recorded in favour of the Accused No.1 may not be disturbed and the Accused No.2 be acquitted.

19. Learned APP opposed these submissions. He submitted that, not only the conviction of the Accused No.2 be upheld, but the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the Accused No.1 should be set aside. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The money was found with both the accused and, therefore, there was presumption against them which the accused have not rebutted. He submitted that, there was sufficiently cogent evidence of PW-1 which is corroborated by PW2. The contradictions did not go to the root of the matter. Therefore, both the accused deserve to be convicted and sentenced.

20. I have considered these submissions. There are certain interesting features in this case. The proceedings regarding the pension of PW-1’s father was taking a very long time. He had to approach the Tribunal and he had to wait for about 7 years for his father’s pension to be processed. All of this has definitely given rise to some grudge in his mind. He has accepted that, he was holding the Accused No.2 responsible for this delay. He has categorically deposed that the proceedings were delayed because of the Accused No.2. Therefore, obviously, he was holding a grudge against both the accused. According to him, he had visited the office of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 on many occasions. This is an admission that goes close to the defence argument that they were falsely implicated because PW-1 was holding grudge against both the accused.

21. In this context, proof of demand was important. According to the prosecution case, PW-1 went to the A.C.B. office on 11.11.2014. After the complaint was recorded, the demonstration of the anthracene powder was shown to him. The currency notes were kept in his pocket and he was asked not to  make the payment unless the demand was made. When he went to the office of the Accused No.2; according to him, the Accused No.2 made a demand in presence of PW-2. In that case, there was no reason for him not to have handed over the anthracene powder coated currency notes to the Accused No.2 then and there. It is not the prosecution case that he was told to first give proof of demand through verification and then only the bribe had to be paid. At the first instance itself he had the currency notes coated with the anthracene powder in his possession. According to him, if the Accused No.2 had demanded the bribe amount, nothing would have stopped him then and there to trap the accused No.2 at that point. However, it was not done. In spite of that alleged demand, PW-1 and PW-2 came back to the spot where the officers were waiting. The recorded conversation was played and then they had decided to lay a trap. This seems rather unusual.

22. It is also significant to note that, at the first instance itself the Accused No.2 had handed over all the necessary documents to PW-1; as deposed by PW-2. Before handing over the documents, there was no demand at all. In the cross-examination, PW-2 has categorically admitted that, as soon as they reached the table of the Accused No.2, he immediately handed over the papers to PW-1 and obtained his signature in the register. Till it was handed over, the Accused No.2 did not demand any money from PW-1. Significantly, PW-2 has deposed that, PW-1 on his own brought up the subject of paying the money to the accused. Even at that time, the Accused No.2 had told him to have a conversation with the concerned lady in the Treasury department. PW-2 has further deposed that, during the conversation, PW-1 was repeatedly bringing up the topic of making the payment to the accused and the Accused No.2 was telling him that he would think about it afterwards. He has further deposed that, till they stepped out, there was no demand made for handing over the papers as hamdast. These admissions are very important and they go to the root of the matter. It shows that, there is a clear possibility of false implication of the Accused No.2 and consequently of the Accused No.1, as well.

23. PW-2 has further deposed that the amount of Rs.2000/- was kept at one place and the amount of Rs.3000/- was kept at a  different place by PW-1. This again is contrary to the prosecution case that the officers of the A.C.B. had put all these notes together in the pocket of PW-1 from where he was supposed to hand them over to the accused, on demand. All these issues are important and there should have been no contradictions on these basic aspects.

24. Significantly, the prosecution has not produced the conversation recorded either at the time of verification of the demand or at the time of the actual trap. The transcripts of those conversations are also not produced on record. What is produced on record is the panchanama of the transcript of taking voice samples of both the accused. This by itself is of no significance at all. There is no further evidence of having sent the voice samples for testing and matching with the recorded conversations. Therefore, in this case, the adverse inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution for not producing the important evidence on this aspect, though, according to the prosecution it was available.

25. As deposed by PW-3, he had seen the actual trap. (J) Though, it was decided that everybody would wait at some distance and only after the pre-arranged signal was given by the PW-1, they would rush to the spot. PW-3 claims to have seen the incident of actual trap of acceptance of the money. At that time, according to him, one unknown person who had entered the canteen on the first occasion, had accepted the money, counted it and then put it in his pocket. He was obviously referring to the Accused No.2 having accepted that amount. He has deposed that the money was counted. In that case, there should have been anthracene powder on both the hands of the Accused No.2. But this is not the prosecution case. The post trap panchanama specifically describes that the anthracene powder was found only on the right hand fingers of the Accused No.2.

26. According to the prosecution case and the deposition, PW-1 was carrying the pension papers with him at the time of raid. The post trap panchanama shows that the photocopies of those papers were taken in charge by the investigating agency. In that case, it would have been a natural course if the anthracene powder was also found on those papers because those papers were carried  by PW-1. But there is no reference of the anthracene powder being found on those papers which were in possession of PW-1. This is another suspicious circumstance against the prosecution case.

27. It was the case of PW-1 that, he was in touch through the telephonic conversation with both the accused, but there is no investigation in that direction. No CDR are produced to show that there was regular conversation between PW-1 and the Accused Nos.1 and 2. The evidence shows that PW-1 himself was repeatedly bringing up the subject of making the payment. The evidence of PW-2 shows that the Accused No.1 had not shown any interest and was telling him that he would think about it later. Even at the time of trap, when PW-1 wanted to make the payment to the Accused No.1, he had not immediately accepted it. Thus, it can be seen that, PW-1 was making efforts to trap both the accused. The evidence also showed that PW-1 was holding grudge against both the accused. Considering all these infirmities, there are too many loopholes in the prosecution case. Therefore, the evidence regarding the acceptance of the bribe amount itself is doubtful. In that case, the presumption U/s.20 of the P.C. Act will  not come in the way of the accused.

28. As a result of the above discussion, it can be seen that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Accused No.1 and also against the Accused No.2. Therefore, both of them deserve to be acquitted. The Accused No.1 is already acquitted. The State of Maharashtra had preferred an Appeal against the acquittal. As far as, the Accused No.1 is concerned, that Appeal deserves to be dismissed. The Accused No.2 deserves to be acquitted from all the charges. Therefore, Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2016 preferred by him against the conviction deserves to be allowed.

29. Hence, the following order:

O R D E R

i)The Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2018 is dismissed.

ii)The order of acquittal recorded in favour of the Accused No.1 Sudesh Laxman Patil, is upheld.

iii)The Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2016 is allowed. The Judgment and order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti-  Corruption), Pune, in Special Case No.53 of 2015, convicting and sentencing the Appellant/Accused No.2 Manoj Ramesh Waghela, is set aside.

iv) The Accused No.2 Manoj Ramesh Waghela is acquitted from all the charges.

v) Both the accused shall execute bonds within a period of two months from today for their appearance, in case, the State of Maharashtra prefers Appeal against the acquittal.

vi) The fine amount be refunded to the Accused No.2, if he has already paid it.

vii) Both the Appeals are disposed of.