JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned APP for appellant - State and learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. The State questions acquittal of respondent in Special Case No.9 of 1998 for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act dated 31st August, 2001 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Ambajogai. 3. Leave was granted on 26th September, 2003. Appeal was admitted and Paper book was dispensed with. 4. The prosecution case was, Rohidas, uncle of complainant, had purchased 2 acres land from survey no.52 of village Chinchpur. He handed over copy of sale deed and urged the respondent to take mutation in revenue record and issue 7/12 extract. The accused, allegedly, demanded amount of Rs.1,000/-, it was negotiated and settled at Rs.500/-. Said Rohidas paid Rs.200/- to accused, the accused called Rohidas after 1520 days. On 14th July, 1997, Rohidas inquired with accused whether, work was done. As stated earlier, amount of Rs.200/- was received by accused and balance amount was to be sent to him through complainant, and then, accused assured to issue 7/12 extract to Rohidas. On 19th July, 1997, complainant approached the Office of Anti Corruption Bureau, report was recorded and trap was decided to be laid. 5. On 21st July, 1997, pre-trap formalities were completed. Thereafter, police party with panch proceeded to the office of accused. The complainant inquired the accused about his work and accused, allegedly, demanded balance amount. The complainant gave Rs.300/-. The accused counted the amount and kept in his pocket. Before accepting money, 7/12 extract was prepared by the accused and it was handed over to the complainant. Owing to a signal of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, panch and other staff rushed in the office of accused and nabbed the accused. Amount Rs.300/- was found in pocket of shirt of accused which showed presence of anthracene powder. Panchnama was duly drawn. 6. The defence of accused was, amount of Rs.275/- was due against the complainant as education cess and cess under employment guarantee scheme. It was, under this scenario, he collected/accepted Rs.300/- from complainant and he was in the process of issuing receipt to that effect, he was controlled while pen in his hand writing receipt. However, he was nabbed and amount was found in his pocket. 7. In order to establish the case against the accused, five witnesses were put in. It was, under this scenario, he collected/accepted Rs.300/- from complainant and he was in the process of issuing receipt to that effect, he was controlled while pen in his hand writing receipt. However, he was nabbed and amount was found in his pocket. 7. In order to establish the case against the accused, five witnesses were put in. P.W. 1 - Uttareshwar at Exhibit 13, he proved complaint Exhibit 30. P.W. 2 - Shrikrishna Dapkar, shadow witness. P.W. 3 - Raghunath Mali at Exhibit 17. P.W. 4 Dnyanoba Fulari at Exhibit 23, who is sanctioning authority. P.W. 5 - Mahendra Bhokare, Investigating Officer, at Exhibit 29. Relevant record was also placed. 8. Accused had examined himself as defence witness at Exhibit 47. The learned Judge, while recording acquittal, has criticised the evidence of sanctioning authority. According to learned Judge, he has not applied mind. This observation of learned Judge, certainly, calls for interference, as sanction illustrates all the events and material which were placed before the sanctioning authority. During evidence, it was not expected of him for witness to possess sharp memory to recollect events. Even if he was volatile in respect of whether, sanction for effecting mutation or for issuing 7/12 extract, however, material aspect of sanction should not have obliterated. To this effect, observations of learned Judge are interfered with. 9. Now, turning to crucial evidence of complainant, panch and defence raised by accused at Exhibit 47. Evidence of P.W. 2 Shrikrishna Dapkar transpired, he had been to the office of accused for his work with his brother on 21st July, 1997. P.W. 1 complainant and some other persons were sitting in the office of accused. Complainant had received 7/12 extract and had kept it in his pocket. However, according to him, at such time, accused inquired about Rs.300/- and then money was released by complainant which accused, allegedly, kept in his pocket. The receipt prepared by accused was tendered in evidence, it was regarding education cess and cess under employment guarantee scheme. When the trap was led, the accused was writing receipt. His hand was controlled with pen that has come in the evidence and also panchanma. Non examination of Rohidas, with whom initial demand was made by the accused, has put a fetal blow to the prosecution. The complainant had applied for loan for tractor, 7/12 extract was given by accused to the complainant. His hand was controlled with pen that has come in the evidence and also panchanma. Non examination of Rohidas, with whom initial demand was made by the accused, has put a fetal blow to the prosecution. The complainant had applied for loan for tractor, 7/12 extract was given by accused to the complainant. When P.W. 5 Bhokare entered in the office of accused, he was writing receipt. P.W. 5 caught hold pen of accused. The presumption in view of Section 20 of the Act was taken care of by learned Judge. Consequently, defence raised and established by accused of receiving amount in respect of Government dues is cogent and logical, as for issuing fresh 7/12 extract, clearance of dues was imperative, as complainant had sugarcane crop in the field. 10. Acquittal recorded, therefore, does not call for interference. Appeal dismissed.