State of Maharashtra Vs Balu S/o. Kashinath More (Bombay High Court)
The State sought leave to challenge the judgment dated 05.06.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, which had acquitted the accused, a Gramsevak, of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded and accepted ₹3,000 as a bribe for issuing a Form-8 extract relating to village panchayat property.
According to the prosecution, upon receiving a complaint from PW1 (the complainant), the Anti-Corruption Bureau arranged a trap after verification. The complainant and the shadow panch witness allegedly confirmed the demand during verification, and the accused was apprehended red-handed while accepting the currency. A panchanama was drawn, and a transcript of the recorded conversation was relied upon to argue that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence.
The defence supported the acquittal, contending that the amount demanded and accepted was towards property tax arrears and not illegal gratification. It was pointed out that the accused had consistently stated, even immediately after apprehension, that the money was for tax dues.
Upon examining the record, the High Court noted significant admissions in the evidence. The complainant admitted during cross-examination that the accused had asked him to pay arrears of tax before issuing the extract and that he had already paid part of the tax earlier. He further admitted that when ₹3,000 was paid, the accused asked for an additional ₹500, indicating a shortfall in tax payment.
