JUDGMENT : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted by Special Court (A.C.B.), Nagpur, in Special Case No.1 of 2004, vide judgment and order dated 30/11/2009, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-. In default of fine, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the above Act and identical punishment has been imposed upon him. Said punishments are to run concurrently. 2. This Court on 29/12/2009 admitted the appeal and while passing order on Criminal Application No. 403 of 2009 released appellant on bail. 3. I have heard Shri. A. S. Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. J. Y. Ghurde learned APP for the respondent. 4. The prosecution has approached the Trial Court with a case that complainant-Vijay Telmasare had moved an application to the office of appellant for certain correction in revenue records and he needed those records expeditiously to enable him to obtain licence from Agricultural Produced Market. Accordingly, to complete that work expeditiously appellant demanded bribe of Rs.3000/- which after negotiations was brought down to Rs.2000/-. The amount of Rs.500/- was accepted in February 2003 and trap was conducted while paying balance amount of Rs.1500/-. The appellant was caught red-handed on 23/04/2003. 5. The appellant claims that he had no work in his official capacity with complainant and he received amount of Rs.1500/- as it was sent by appellant's cousin through complainant. Accordingly, though he accepted receipt of amount, he is denying any occasion to demand the bribe, demand of bribe itself and, therefore, claims false implication. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Adv. A. S. Manohar, in this backdrop submits that, Trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellant only on account of sanction order which shows some non-application of mind and because evidence of first panch, who accompanied complainant on 23/04/2003, shows that receipt of amount was never in dispute. The actual trap after alleged amount was accepted as bribe and arrival of second panch are the facts not in dispute. 7. He however submits that here as nature of transaction itself is in dispute, neither the complainant nor investigating officer have entered into the witness box. The actual trap after alleged amount was accepted as bribe and arrival of second panch are the facts not in dispute. 7. He however submits that here as nature of transaction itself is in dispute, neither the complainant nor investigating officer have entered into the witness box. Thus alleged transaction between complainant and appellant has not been brought on record. With the assistance of other material, he contends that only appellate work is undertaken in the office of appellant and hence, application for correction, if any, could not have been moved, hence, no such application with its case number or its pendency in the office of the appellant is proved by prosecution. 8. He further submits that part payment of Rs.500/- is claimed to be done sometime in the first week of February 2003 and if there was any urgency, the story of balance payment effected after 6 weeks thereafter, militates with the alleged urgency. Without prejudice it is pointed out that the appellant had attempted to obtain information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and produced those documents before the Trial Court. As those documents were not allowed to be produced, this Court was approached in a Revision and then permission to file those documents was granted. Communication from A.P.M.C. Nagpur dated 04/12/2007 revealed that complainant had deposited balance fees for the period 2002 to 2005 on 31/08/2002 and his Adatiya licence was then renewed. Hence, before alleged first payment the licence was already renewed. The information given by the office of appellant on 14/11/2008 is also relied upon to show that no request of complainant was pending with City Survey Office No.1 at Nagpur. It is submitted that though these documents are exhibited, as these are not public documents, Trial Court has not accepted contents thereof. 9. Learned APP submits that, the complainant Vijay Telmasare expired on 19/08/2009 and hence could not be examined. On 07/09/2009 first panch was examined as PW-2. PW-2 Chandrashekhar Leeladhar Mate has proved contents of complaint at Exh. 16 and as he accompanied complainant on the day of trap, entire incident including transaction of demand has been brought on record through him. 10. He submits that though, thereafter, summonses were issued to witnesses, they did not turn up and hence, could not be examined. PW-2 Chandrashekhar Leeladhar Mate has proved contents of complaint at Exh. 16 and as he accompanied complainant on the day of trap, entire incident including transaction of demand has been brought on record through him. 10. He submits that though, thereafter, summonses were issued to witnesses, they did not turn up and hence, could not be examined. However, he got support from deposition of PW-1 Pandit Ramje Kanekar to show that before granting sanction said authority has satisfied itself about the correctness of Exh. 16. 11. Learned A.P.P. Shri. Ghurde states that, documents obtained from A.P.M.C., Nagpur or then from City Survey Office No.1, Nagpur were not filed on record during lifetime of complainant and no effort has been made to prove its contents by summoning those authorities. Those documents are, therefore, rightly discarded by the Trial Court. He also points out that the cousin, who allegedly returned the money to appellant, has also not been examined. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of appeal. 12. In brief reply to learned A.P.P., Adv. Manohar submits that said cousin had also expired during trial and hence it was pointed out to Trial Court that his evidence was not available. The sanctioning authority has not called for the records of the office of appellant and has not verified whether any case or application filed by complainant-Vijay Telmasare was really pending or not. 13. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses and second witness Chandrashekhar Mate is on trap dated 23/04/2003. His evidence shows that in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau the tainted currency notes were kept in left side shirt pocket of complainant. He deposes that while effecting payment to appellant, complainant had taken out the money from the pocket on right side of the shirt and made it over to accused/appellant. His crossexamination points out that this person has accepted that he has acted as panch and he had assisted ACB in 4-5 more matters. According to Adv. Manohar, in this situation conviction could not have been based on the evidence of this sole witness. I find substance in this contention. This witness has stated that complainant told them the earlier history pointing out that the appellant had asked for amount of Rs.3000/-, he agreed to pay Rs.2000/- and a demand of advance of Rs.500/-. According to Adv. Manohar, in this situation conviction could not have been based on the evidence of this sole witness. I find substance in this contention. This witness has stated that complainant told them the earlier history pointing out that the appellant had asked for amount of Rs.3000/-, he agreed to pay Rs.2000/- and a demand of advance of Rs.500/-. His crossexamination shows that complainant did not tell him when he had given Rs.500/- as an advance to accused but he told them that he had given advance on some day in the morning time. Complaint Exh. 16 shows that in first week of February 2003 complainant agreed to pay Rs.2000/- and at that time advance was demanded by accused. Complainant in Exh. 16 claimed that he paid advance of Rs.500/- on that day. This narration in Exh. 16 is therefore, not supported by PW-2 Chandrashekhar. 14. It is to be noted that the appellant has given suggestion to this witness to show that the complainant paid amount of Rs.1500/- to appellant/accused as amount sent by his cousin brother. It is claimed that accused also asked complainant as to why his cousin had not come and complainant then discloses that cousin was doing some other work. Though this witness has denied this suggestion, the fact that story of receiving money from cousin by appellant was put to this witness, is on record. 15. The other suggestion given by the accused to complainant was about advise to file plain application to City Survey Office and fact that only appeal would be received by office of appellant. Though this witness has denied the same, he has accepted that he was not aware whether work of mutation in Akhiv Patrika (Property Card) was done in the office of accused. 16. The evidence of PW-1 Pandit, who was Chief Land and Survey Officer, Pune is only on the point of sanction under Section 19 of the above Act. He had received investigation papers and after reading the same he granted sanction. His cross-examination does not show anything more and it does not appear that he had verified records of the office in which appellant was working and was aware that any application moved by Vijay Telmasare for correction was already pending. No such application is produced before the Trial Court and it did not, therefore, form part of investigation papers. 17. His cross-examination does not show anything more and it does not appear that he had verified records of the office in which appellant was working and was aware that any application moved by Vijay Telmasare for correction was already pending. No such application is produced before the Trial Court and it did not, therefore, form part of investigation papers. 17. As already observed supra, Vijay Telmasare expired on 19/08/2009. This fact finds mention in Roznama dated 21/08/2009. On next date i.e. 07/09/2009, evidence of PW-2 Chandrashekhar came to be recorded and A.P.P. closed the prosecution side. Matter was adjourned for recording statement of accused to 23/09/2009. Contention of learned A.P.P. that efforts were made to procure attendance of other panch or investigating officer is therefore not supported by roznama. It appears that matter then remained pending and on 06/10/2009 statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Matter was again adjourned from time to time since the appellant/accused had tendered documents received by him in defence. It appears that on 15/10/2009 applications for permission to examine the defence witness and for issuance of summonses to them vide Exh. 28 and 29 were made. Applications were rejected. This High Court was approached in Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2009. Hence, matter was adjourned by Trial Court. On 25/11/2009, the Trial Court was informed that Revision No. 201 of 2009 was disposed of but, order was not available. Trial Court then gave exhibit numbers to documents. Those exhibits are Exh. 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37. Thereafter, oral arguments were heard and the impugned judgment came to be delivered. I cannot therefore accept that accused made no efforts to prove contents of documents filed by him in defence. 18. The development noted supra, therefore, show efforts made by appellant to place on record the fact that no application for modification of City Survey Record was made before City Survey Officer No.1 at Nagpur. Again through letter at Exh. 37 issued by APMC, Nagpur efforts were made to demonstrate that Adatiya licence of complainant was already renewed in 2002 itself and as such in February 2003 or April 2003, he had no reason or occasion to seek any correction in Akhiv Patrika. 19. Accused/Appellant could not examine his cousin, who expired during trial, prosecution also could not examine complainant, who expired on 19/08/2009. Complaint at Exh. 19. Accused/Appellant could not examine his cousin, who expired during trial, prosecution also could not examine complainant, who expired on 19/08/2009. Complaint at Exh. 16 has not been fully substantiated by PW-2 Chandrashekhar. Other panch or investigating officer have not entered the witness box at all. 20. In this situation, it is apparent that the occasion for demand of bribe or even nature of amount received as bribe has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 21. I, therefore, find judgment and order dated 30/11/2009 impugned in this appeal unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. 22. Appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 and also under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 12(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 23. Bail bond furnished by him stands cancelled. 24. Seized property be dealt with as directed by Trial Court after appeal period is over.