Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Nagpur in Special Case No.19 of 1989 whereby the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: That the complainant Mr.Anjan Surendramohan Bhattacharya -who was Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur lodged a complaint that the accused had demanded bribe of Rs.500/-for admission of his cousin sister Ms Sushmita Guha Roy to D.Ed. Part II Course in D.Ed. College. Accused told Sushmita that she shall pay a sum of Rs.500/-to get admission in D.Ed. Part II Course. The complainant and his cousin sister were reluctant to pay the bribe, but then they decided to do so and informed the Anti Corruption Bureau. Thus, the complaint was lodged and pre-trap Panchanama was drawn as per procedure by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, A.C.B., Nagpur. It is alleged that, as per the trap plan, the accused was trapped after receiving the bribe amount from the complainant in presence of panch witnesses. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Mr.M.A.Aziz from A.C.B., Nagpur had filed charge sheet against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed for the offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Sections 5 (1)(d) and 5 (2i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Defence of the accused is of total denial. He claimed that he is falsely implicated in the case. 4. The Special Judge, after recording the evidence of five witnesses and statement of accused u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has received illegal gratification, as alleged, to arrange admission for cousin sister of the complainant in D.Ed. Part-II Course in the Government D.Ed. College, Ravi Nagar, Nagpur. Thus, concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, the accused was acquitted. 5. Part-II Course in the Government D.Ed. College, Ravi Nagar, Nagpur. Thus, concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, the accused was acquitted. 5. Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecution has proved demand as well as acceptance so as to prove the offences alleged against the accused and therefore, the learned trial Judge was in error to acquit the accused. According to the learned A.P.P., there was cogent evidence of prosecution witnesses to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. He made a reference to the evidence of the complainant Mr.Anjan Bhattacharya and submitted that his evidence was not appropriately considered by the learned trial Judge. He, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order. 6. On the other hand, Mr.J.M.Gandhi, learned Advocate for the respondent/accused submitted that the cousin sister of complainant Anjan Bhattacharya had appeared in D.Ed. Part-I examination in the year 1985. Her result was not declared. Therefore, it was not possible for her to get admission in the second year of D.Ed. course in 1986. Learned Advocate for the respondent/accused made a reference to the evidence of Anjan Bhattacharya/complainant (PW-1) in the case and submitted that, in the course of his cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he does not know about the procedure of admission to D.Ed. course. He also admitted that Sushmita Guha Roy was student of first year D.Ed. course as on 16.5.1986. He also does not know what was the post of the accused at that time and he never made inquiry about it. Thus, the complainant clearly admitted that he cannot tell whether admission to the second year D.Ed. course was made available to the candidate who has not passed the first year D.Ed. course since the result was not declared so far as the first year D.Ed. course is concerned, till the date of evidence of the complainant. He admitted that his sister was not admitted in the second year course of D.Ed. college and he is unable to tell any reason for the same. In para 14 of his evidence, the complainant clearly stated that when he went to the house of the accused, he told him that he had brought admission fees of his sister. Except this talk, no other talk was there in between him and the accused. college and he is unable to tell any reason for the same. In para 14 of his evidence, the complainant clearly stated that when he went to the house of the accused, he told him that he had brought admission fees of his sister. Except this talk, no other talk was there in between him and the accused. Similarly, there was no talk between him and Vijay Deshmukh who had accompanied him. Under these circumstances, there was no evidence of any negotiation or talk between the complainant and the accused. Thus, according to the learned Advocate for the respondent/accused, there was no evidence of demand and acceptance. The learned Advocate for the respondent/accused also submitted that the probability to falsely implicate the accused cannot be ruled out. He also invited my attention to omissions in para 15 of evidence of Anjan Bhattacharya (PW-1). He is unable to give explanation regarding omission of material facts such as - the A.C.B. asked him as to whether he brought amount of Rs.576/-and he answered the same in the affirmative. It was so mentioned in his statement before the police in Exh.14. He did not tell in his report that the alleged amount of bribe was taken from Chaadar by the police constable and both the hands of the accused were dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate. He is unable to give explanation in respect of material facts not stated in his earlier report (complaint.). The learned Advocate submitted that benefit of omissions which are material in nature in para 15 of evidence of Anjan Bhattacharya (PW-1) ought to go in favour of the respondent/accused. He also invited my attention to the evidence of Anjan who states that the accused had kept the amount in watch pocket. While, according to Vijay Deshmukh (PW-2), the amount was kept in the hip pocket of Anjan Bhattacharya (PW-1). The learned Advocate for the respondent/accused also submitted that the panchas used in the present case were habitual panchas and their evidence cannot be relied upon as they were interested witnesses chosen by the prosecution. Even, according to Sushmita Guha Roy (PW-4), result of D.Ed. Part I examination was to be declared. In the course of her cross-examination (in para no.5), she admitted that it is not true that the accused had demanded Rs.76/- and Rs.500/- for giving admission while she was cross-examined. Even, according to Sushmita Guha Roy (PW-4), result of D.Ed. Part I examination was to be declared. In the course of her cross-examination (in para no.5), she admitted that it is not true that the accused had demanded Rs.76/- and Rs.500/- for giving admission while she was cross-examined. The learned Advocate for the respondent/accused, apart from the demerits of the case, also criticised the prosecution in this case on the ground that there was no valid and legal sanction to prosecute the respondent/accused. Vijay Deshmukh (PW-3) deposed about receiving a letter for grant of sanction for prosecution (Exh.25). According to him, number of papers were sent which included some statements. In the course of his cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot tell whose statements he had received along with index. He also admitted that besides papers already sent to him, he had not seen any other papers. He had not made any inquiry in Government D.Ed. College at Nagpur. He does not know if Sushmita was a student of Government D.Ed. college or not. He cannot tell with certainty if admission can be given to the student in D.Ed. Part II Course who does not clear D.Ed. Part-I course. He also cannot tell any reason as to why he took time to accord sanction in the instant case. According to him, he had received one draft letter for sanction along with other papers and on the basis of this, he prepared sanction order. Thus, there was non-application of mind before grant of sanction in the present case. 7. Considering the nature of evidence as afore-said, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment is unreasonable or unsustainable. It appears that the learned trial Judge has scrutinized the evidence carefully and found that it was not cogent, consistent and convincing and therefore, refused to accept it. The view of the learned Special Judge is reasonable and probable and needs no interference in view of the facts and circumstances of the case revealed from the record. That being so, the instant appeal has no merits. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.