Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 237 (BOM)

Daulat Arjun Doifode v. State of Maharashtra

2020-01-31

S.M.MODAK

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The Accountant/Auditor Shri Gade (Accused No.1) and the Supervisor Shri Doifode (Accused No.2) of Khadi & Village Industries Office, Buldhana are convicted for accepting bribe and conducting themselves criminally. Accused-Doifode was supposed to scrutinize the loan proposal, submit it to higher officers and supposed to inspect the spot. Whereas accused No.1-Gade was supposed to recommend higherups for sanction. 2. Both were supposed to assist the borrower (who is in need of loan for his village industry) in getting sanction of loan. Both the accused did assisted in sanction of loan. But when question of disbursal arose, both tried to misuse their official position. First installment of Rs. 20,000/- was disbursed. At the time of disbursal of second installment, by way of cheques both demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 4,000/- (which was reduced to Rs. 2,000/-). Both the accused demanded the amount together on certain occasion and individually on different occasion. 3. The complainant-Motiram Kewat was not ready to part away money. He approached the Office of Anit Corruption Bureau, Buldhana (hereinafter referred to as “ACB” for short) on 26th May, 1998. Though trap was laid against both the accused, it was successful only against accused-Gade. He was caught when he accepted Rs. 2,000/- on 26th May, 1998. The role of accused-Doifode was there in demanding as well in assisting accused-Gade in accepting bribe. 4. Prosecution examined six witnesses. Complainant-Motiram Kewat took U-turn while giving evidence. He stick up to his complaint in part. He had chosen not to speak about the involvement of accused No.2-Doifode. The trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge, Buldhana convicted them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year and Rs. 1,000/- as fine for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Whereas for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the punishment was rigorous imprisonment for one year and Rs.1,000/- as fine. 5. Neither of the accused have examined witnesses and entered into the witness box. The defence of both the accused is that of denial. Accused-Gade tried to give an explanation that he accepted Rs.2,000/- towards repayment of loan given to the complainant. 6. 5. Neither of the accused have examined witnesses and entered into the witness box. The defence of both the accused is that of denial. Accused-Gade tried to give an explanation that he accepted Rs.2,000/- towards repayment of loan given to the complainant. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Tiwari and learned Advocate Shri Jaltare argued on behalf of accused No.1 and accused No.2 respectively. Whereas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh argued for the State. All of them assisted me in going through the record and cited some of the judgments. Learned Advocate Shri Tiwari argued on variance in the evidence of PW-1 Kewat and shadow panch Shri Gaikwad. He also argued about reliability of evidence of Kewat (particularly on the background of disowning from his grievance against accused-Doifode). On the point of competency of Chief Executive Officer, of Khadi & Village Industries Board, he challenged prosecution evidence. Whereas, learned Advocate Shri Jaltare criticized the conduct of trial Judge in believing the complaint and statement of complainant overlooking what he said before the court. According to him, the evidence of shadow panch on the point of reiteration of demand is not sufficient to prove the utterances, because the utterances were not adequate. 7. Whereas, according to learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh for the State, there are no variances and if at all they are there, they are natural. According to her, even if the evidence of PW-1 is not considered, remaining evidence is sufficient to convict the accused-Doifode. I am supposed to decide the appeal on following factual and legal issues: (a) What is the evidentiary value of complaint lodged to ACB particularly when the author of the complaint has resiled from it? (b) If the complainant has resiled from part of the complaint, does it affect his reliability in respect of rest of his evidence against accused No.1-Gade? (c) If evidence of complainant is excluded against accused No.2- Doifode, whether remaining evidence is sufficient to prove offence against him? (d) Is there variance in between the testimony of complainant and shadow panch so far as involvement of accused-Gade is concerned? (e) Who is competent to grant sanction and whether there is application of mind? (f) Whether demand and acceptance is proved and, if yes, against which accused? (g) Being public servant whether any of the accused has misconducted themselves criminally? (h) What judgment? DISCUSSION 8. (e) Who is competent to grant sanction and whether there is application of mind? (f) Whether demand and acceptance is proved and, if yes, against which accused? (g) Being public servant whether any of the accused has misconducted themselves criminally? (h) What judgment? DISCUSSION 8. In order to avoid repetition, I have avoided to narrate the events in the introductory paragraphs of the judgment. The Office of Khadi & Village Industries, Buldhana is having their internal procedure about sanction of the loan. The accused Nos.1 & 2 being the Accountant/Auditor and supervisor have got different role to play in the entire process of sanction of loan. One Rajkumar Gulabsingh Dangar is the witness, who can throw some light on the office procedure. EVIDENCE OF DANGAR 9. He was working as a District Village Officer at Buldhana. State Khadi & Village Industries Board was established in the year 1962. There is a Board of Directors headed by Chairman. So also there is Chief Executive Officer. The District is divided in different circles. One of them is Andhera Circle. Accused No.2-Doifode was Industrial Supervisor at that Circle. So also he was a supervisor for Deulgaon Raja Taluka. Whereas, accused No.1-Gade was working as an Accountant/Auditor. There is no dispute about the place of posting and the post held by accused Nos.1 & 2. It is the job of accused No.2-Doifode to accept the loan application. He has to recommend the proposal to the auditor and the auditor in turn will certify and recommend it to the valuation committee. Then, the proposal will reach District Village Officer. 10. There is a procedure of opening a joint account in Buldhana District Central Cooperative Bank. It has to be opened in the name of the beneficiary and the District Village Industries Officer. There is a practice of disbursing the loan amount from a joint account by installments. Prior to disbursement, the borrower has to deposit Rs.2.5% of the loan by way of Government Guarantee Fee. 11. The complainant was sanctioned Rs.33,240/- on account of different purposes. Out of that, on 24th March, 1998 an amount of Rs.20,000/- was disbursed to the complainant for construction of a shade from the Joint Account and Rs.13,240/- remained to be disbursed. The incident of demand and acceptance took place while disbursing the remaining amount of Rs.13,240/-. 11. The complainant was sanctioned Rs.33,240/- on account of different purposes. Out of that, on 24th March, 1998 an amount of Rs.20,000/- was disbursed to the complainant for construction of a shade from the Joint Account and Rs.13,240/- remained to be disbursed. The incident of demand and acceptance took place while disbursing the remaining amount of Rs.13,240/-. The witness has also issued a cheque for Rs.3,000/- and for Rs.5,240/- (remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- was disbursed after the trap was laid and as per the request of ACB). There is no dispute about amount of Rs.3,000/- of a cheque issued in the name of Vijay Welding Works. Dispute pertains to other cheque. As per record created at the beginning cheque of Rs.10,240/- was prepared. Admittedly cheque of that amount was not given. But cheque of Rs.5,240/- was given to the complainant. How the amount was reduced from Rs.10,240/- to Rs.5,240/-? whether the amount was altered by accused-Doifode or else whether the amount was altered by witness Dangar only? Because non-payment of bribe amount is claimed as the reason for alteration in the amount of the cheque. 12. As said above, the trial Court while convicting the accused- Gade has believed upon the evidence of (a) complainant (b) shadow panch PW-2 (c) another panch PW-3 (d) Investigating Officer Whereas against accused-Doifode, the trial Court believed upon the evidence of (a) shadow panch PW-2 & PW-3. (b) Documentary evidence in the form of complaint lodged to the Office of ACB. So, the prosecution evidence needs to be appreciated considering the involvement of each accused. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE There are four material witnesses, they are (a) PW-1 - complainant–Motiram Kewat. (b) PW-2 – shadow panch–Jitendra Gaikwad. (c) PW-3 – another panch–Madukar Eknath Padghan. (d) PW-5 - Investigation Officer–Mohan Anand Kshirsagar. The evidence on the point of demand consists of:- (a) Demand made prior to approaching ACB and demand made by which accused. (b) demand made on the date of trap. CITATIONS 13. First of all, I will deal with them. On the point of legal requirements to prove ‘demand’, learned Advocate Shri Tiwari for the appellant relied upon one judgment. When there is variance in between the evidence of the complainant and shadow panch PW-2, the benefit was given to the accused in case of Rajendrakumar Laxmichand Gupta vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1425. On the point of legal requirements to prove ‘demand’, learned Advocate Shri Tiwari for the appellant relied upon one judgment. When there is variance in between the evidence of the complainant and shadow panch PW-2, the benefit was given to the accused in case of Rajendrakumar Laxmichand Gupta vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1425. The first receiver of the amount accused No.2 was acquitted by the trial Court, through him the money passed on to accused No.1/appellant. Shadow panch has not referred to any demand made by the appellant. He has not said that appellant asked the complainant to pay the amount to accused No.2. Whereas, the complainant has said that the appellant inquired with the complainant about bringing of the amount. Benefit was given to appellant about this variance. 14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh for the respondent relied upon the judgment in the case of Balim s/o Wasudeo Ghodki (Dead) through his Lrs. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 3211. It was also the case of demand of a bribe by supervisor working in Khadi Grammodhog Mahamandal. After conviction, he expired. The appeal was prosecuted by his Legal Representatives. However, on facts, this court refused to interfere in the finding about proof of demand and acceptance. 15. In case of Hazari Lal Vs. State reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to give benefit to convicted appellant relating to not supporting the prosecution case except by panch witness PW-4 Davindar kumar and PW-8 Inspector Parasnath. The trial Court and the High Court have made use of the averments in a statement recorded under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those particulars were excluded by Hon’ble Supreme Court from the evidence of these two witnesses (paragraph 8). However, rest of their evidence was found reliable. The ratio of the judgment is, passing of the money to the accused can be proved by direct as well as by circumstantial evidence. Even the evidence of the police officer who laid the trap can be accepted in a given case without corroboration. 16. She also relied upon the judgment in the case of M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691 . Even the evidence of the police officer who laid the trap can be accepted in a given case without corroboration. 16. She also relied upon the judgment in the case of M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691 . It is on the point of drawing of a presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the word ‘may presume’ and ‘shall presume’ vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act. 17. She also relied upon the judgment in the case of Shri Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 357 . The demand and acceptance were reiterated as twin requirements for conviction. I will consider later on to what extent ratios in above citations will be useful and to whom it is useful. DEMAND PRIOR TO APPROACHING A.C.B. 18. They are by both the accused on different dates. Panchas (PW-2 & PW-3) are not the witness to these incidents. Complainant is the only witness. There also he had stick up to his version against accused- Gade, but against accused- Doifode, he has resiled from his earlier version given before the ACB. The dates and events appearing as per the evidence of complainant are as follows:- (a) First visit. (b) Second visit at Deulgaon Mahi. 19. In the evidence of PW-1 Motiram Kewat, the dates of visit/ meeting with both the accused were not depicted very clearly. Sometime he has referred the event by mentioning the date and on another occasion it by describing the day. So, we have to presume the events by considering all the factors cumulatively. FIRST VISIT 20. The date of this visit is also not clear. It may be on 15th May, 1998. Because, in the papers seized from the office after the trap (and which were shown to witness Dangar). The date of visit as 15th May, 1998 had come, it was on account of ascertaining the construction of a shed (for which Rs.20,000/-) was disbursed. Accused-Doifode was satisfied with the work. Accused-Gade was accompanying him. Certain interaction took place on that date. Certain utterances were attributed to accused-Gade. Whereas the role of accused-Doifode was to accompany accused-Gade. These things were stated while lodging the complaint by the complainant-Motiram Kewat. However, before the Court, the complainant has made following assertions. Accused-Doifode was satisfied with the work. Accused-Gade was accompanying him. Certain interaction took place on that date. Certain utterances were attributed to accused-Gade. Whereas the role of accused-Doifode was to accompany accused-Gade. These things were stated while lodging the complaint by the complainant-Motiram Kewat. However, before the Court, the complainant has made following assertions. They are as follows:- (a) Demand of Rs.4,000/- was made by accused-Gade and it is for the purpose of releasing the remaining amount by cheque. By negotiation, the complainant settled it Rs.2,000/-. (b) Before the police, the complainant has attributed the role of remaining present by accused-Doifode at the time of this interaction. However, before the Court he had shown him absent from the spot. Though he came but at the time of material discussion, he left and then came subsequently. In the complaint, he has alleged that Rs.4,000/- was demanded by accused-Gade for himself as well as for accused-Doifode but before the Court he has not attributed the share of accused-Doifode. 21. The complainant was declared hostile. Certain questions were put to him by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor which are permissible during the cross-examination. However, the complainant was firm and he has not given any answer which will be useful to the prosecution, in order to show the involvement of accused-Doifode. 22. From the evidence of witness Dangar, we can very well say that accused-Doifode had visited the site on 15th May, 1998. Witness Dangar has also sanctioned the TA bill of accused-Doifode, it is at Exh.53. It shows that on 15th May, 1998 he reached Andhera at 6:00 p.m. and left at 7:30 p.m. The attention of witness Dangar is not brought about visit of accused-Gade at Andhera on 15th May, 1998. 23. As said above the complainant in his evidence before the Court has not referred to particular dates of visit. The learned trial Judge has considered “averments made by the complainant in the complaint about accompanying accused-Doifode when accused-Gade demanded the amount and that too for himself and accused-Doifode”. Whether it can be accepted when not testified in evidence will be considered later on. SECOND VISIT AT DEULGAON MAHI 24. No date has been specified by the complainant. During this visit, accused-Gade was not there but it is only accused-Doifode was there. During that visit, accused-Doifode handed over two cheques to the complainant. One is for Rs. Whether it can be accepted when not testified in evidence will be considered later on. SECOND VISIT AT DEULGAON MAHI 24. No date has been specified by the complainant. During this visit, accused-Gade was not there but it is only accused-Doifode was there. During that visit, accused-Doifode handed over two cheques to the complainant. One is for Rs. 3,000/- in the name of Vijay Welding Works. In respect of this cheque, there is consistency in between the averments made in the complaint and what has been deposed in the evidence by the complainant. Controversy arises in respect of – “About reduction of the amount of second cheque from Rs. 10,240/- to Rs. 5,240/- and under what circumstances. The amount was reduced and that too by the accused-Doifode.” In the complaint, the complainant has stated as – “the accused-Doifode offered him second cheque in his name for Rs. 10,240/-. When the accused-Doifode inquired about the amount of Rs. 2,000/- and the complainant has expressed difficulty, accused- Doifode scored the amount of cheque from Rs. 10,240/- to Rs. 5,240 and he further advised the complainant to come and meet either him or accused-Gade at Buldhana on 26th May, 1998 with Rs. 2,000/-” However, when the question of giving evidence arose- “the complainant has not stated this portion and he simply stated that cheque of Rs. 5,240/- was handed over”. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried his level best to confirm the relevant portion from the complaint and the statement to the complainant. However, he has not given any answer favourable to him. ALTERATION IN LETTER/CHEQUE 25. He was also cross-examined about the wording of the forwarding letter of cheques and alteration therein. Exh.29 is the office copy of forwarding letter dated 18/22nd May, 1998. It was signed by witness Dangar. The complainant has given acknowledgment on the said letter about the receipt of cheque for Rs.5,240/- dated 18th May, 1998. Witness Dangar admits that in the body of the letter, amount returned as Rs.10,240/- was scored to Rs.5,240/-. This Exh.29 was given during the evidence of the complainant. Whereas Exh.41 is the original of said letter. It was exhibited during the evidence of witness Dangar. The amount of Rs.10,240/- was scored in words as well as in figures in the said letter. This Exh.29 was given during the evidence of the complainant. Whereas Exh.41 is the original of said letter. It was exhibited during the evidence of witness Dangar. The amount of Rs.10,240/- was scored in words as well as in figures in the said letter. Whereas Exh.42 is the office copy of the letter dated 18th/22nd May, 1998, it was exhibited during the evidence of witness Dangar. Cheque of Rs.3,000/- was handed over i.e. acknowledgment of the complainant for receipt of the said cheque at Exh.42. 26. Now the issue is, who has done the alteration in the letter Exh.29 and in the cheque for Rs.5,240. The said cheque is not tendered in the evidence. It was not pointed out as to whether it was seized during the investigation. Now, whether this alteration was done by accused-Doifode and whether it was on account of not complying the demand for Rs.2,000/-. 27. As said above the complainant has not stick up to his version stated before the police whereas witness Dangar’s evidence, is material. He admits that the Supervisor–Doifode and Accountant–Gade have recommended for Rs.3,000/- and Rs.10,240/-. In spite of that, he has not released the entire amount. He released only Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,240/-. He kept Rs.5,000/- pending. So when he has not accepted the recommendation for the entire amount, why the forwarding letter and cheques were kept ready for the entire amount. He himself had given the answer. He said “in the present case before the recommendation of Audit Officer the covering letter and cheques were already prepared on 18th May, 1998 (paragraph 5)”. 28. The corrected figure of Rs. 5,240/- in the cheque bears his signature. He admits that the scoring in the figure of the covering letter has not been done in his presence. Out of 15 to 20 employees in the Buldhana Office, somebody might have scored the figure in the letter. He has denied the suggestion “at his instance accused No.1-Gade had done the scoring and that is why he has not made any enquiry in that behalf”. 29. So, it is the sole decision of witness Dangar not to release Rs.10,240/- but to release only Rs.5,240/-. Accused Doifode and Gade have already recommended for full disbursal and probably under the expectation that full amount will be released, the covering letter and the cheque mentioning the full amount might have been prepared. 29. So, it is the sole decision of witness Dangar not to release Rs.10,240/- but to release only Rs.5,240/-. Accused Doifode and Gade have already recommended for full disbursal and probably under the expectation that full amount will be released, the covering letter and the cheque mentioning the full amount might have been prepared. When their officer Shri Dangar has sanctioned only half of the amount, it is but natural to score it from the covering letter and from the cheque. But the question is, why did Shri Dangar took that decision? Whether he was knowing that the complainant has not paid Rs.2,000/- to both the accused? Whether he was also expecting some amount out of that? Or whether he did it to protect the interest of institution? 30. The investigating agency proceeded on the assumption that the reason for scoring given by the complainant in the complaint is true. However, when the attention of the complainant is brought to the portion from his complaint/statement “about reason for scoring as not fulfilling the demand” he has not supported it. He had given an explanation. The officers of Anti Corruption Bureau told him that such particulars are necessary. But it is pertinent to note that witness Dangar has taken upon himself the decision for not releasing the entire amount of Rs.10,240/-. 31. So before the Court, there are two versions. One is as stated in the complaint as per prosecution case (which is not testified) and another version as stated by witness Dangar. It seems that the investigating agency proceeded only on assumption that first version is correct. In fact, the investigating agency were having before them the version given by witness Dangar also but they did nothing to find out which version is correct. So also during the trial, no attempt was made to clarify which version is correct. This misery has not stopped there. It also outweighed the mind of the trial Court. The trial Court went to the extent of considering the averments in the complaint as evidence. THE PLACE OF DELIVERY OF TWO CHEQUES 32. There also there are two versions. The complainant states that two cheques were handed over to him at Deulgaon Mahi. This misery has not stopped there. It also outweighed the mind of the trial Court. The trial Court went to the extent of considering the averments in the complaint as evidence. THE PLACE OF DELIVERY OF TWO CHEQUES 32. There also there are two versions. The complainant states that two cheques were handed over to him at Deulgaon Mahi. He further states that “on 22nd May, 1998 i.e. at Friday, he did not come to Buldhana in Khadi Office and he did not receive the cheque of Rs.5240/- in that office” (paragraph 16 of his evidence). He categorically states that he received corrected cheque of Rs.5240/- through the hands of accused-Doifode (page no.16). Whereas witness Dangar says during the cross-examination that cheques were given to complaint by hand delivery. They were given when he had come in the office (para 7 page 8 of the evidence). He was also asked about legality in handing over the cheques outside the office. He answered “if the supervisor would have done so, it will be illegal”. He has also said: “it would be incorrect to say that the Supervisor i.e. accused No.2-Doifode went to the village of the complainant on 22nd May, 1998 along with letters in cheques and handed over and obtained his signatures”. So which version is to be believed? Whether the complainant is to be believed or whether witness Dangar is to be believed? Whether it has happened that in fact, the cheques and letters were handed over at Deulgaon Mahi but on record, it is shown that they were handed over in the office? It was the duty of the prosecution to clarify about this possibility. Unfortunately, it has not happened. Even the trial Court has not paid attention to this issue and the trial Court proceeded by believing the contents of the complaint (which is not evidence). MUSTER/TA/DA BILL 33. Witness Dangar is also cross-examined by learned Advocate for accused-Gade and Doifode on the point of their visits. Muster role for the month of May, 1998 for both the accused is at Exh.44, whereas the TA/DA bill for accused-Gade is at Exh.48. Whereas for accused-Doifode tour programme is at Exh.51 & Exh.52 and TA bill is at Exh.53. The attention of the witness Dangar is brought towards these documents. He has sanctioned the TA/DA Bills. Muster role for the month of May, 1998 for both the accused is at Exh.44, whereas the TA/DA bill for accused-Gade is at Exh.48. Whereas for accused-Doifode tour programme is at Exh.51 & Exh.52 and TA bill is at Exh.53. The attention of the witness Dangar is brought towards these documents. He has sanctioned the TA/DA Bills. The following things emerge from that:- (a) On 20th May, 1998 accused-Gade was not in the office but he was on tour, he had visited the Shelgaon Arod and Shingaon Jahagir. (b) On 20th May, 1998 and 21st May, 1998 the accused No.2- Doifode was on tour (Exh.44 Muster Roll) (paragraph 10 of cross-examination). (c) On 22nd May, 1998 Supervisor/accused No.2-Doifode was present in the office, “accused was also on tour on 22nd May, 1998” denied by the witness (paragraph 12). (d) On 21th May, 1998 the accused No.2-Doifode has visited Malkapur Pangara, Dusarbid. He halted at Dusarbid. From there he went to Deulgaon Raja on 22nd May, 1998. (e) On 22nd May, 1998 he came to Buldhana from Deulgaon Raja Exhs. 50 & 51 are the diaries. Exh.52 is the tour report by accused No.2-Doifode. Exh. 52 shows that on 20th May, 1998 accused had done inspection one Shri Chauhan of Shingaon Jahagir and inspection of Sheik Habib at Shelgaon Atol. (f) On 21th May, 1998 he made the inspection of one Waghmare at Malkapur Pangara. (g) Exh.52 further says that on 21st May, 1998 from Malkapur Pangara he went to Dusarbid and from Dusarbid he went to Deulgaon Raja on 22nd May, 1998. (h) Exh. 53 is TA bill for the visits on 8th May, 15th May, 20th May, 21st May and 22nd May. He left Deulgaon Raja at 6:00 p.m. and reached Buldhana at 8:30 p.m. Suggestion was given to him and he has denied that accused-Doifode was on duty at Buldhana on 22nd May, 1998 (paragraph 17). 34. As said above, the complainant has not stated the specific dates of visit by both the accused and by accused-Doifode alone. The trial Court has not considered what is the effect of these dates mentioned in the TA/DA Bills. I will give my comment about effect of this evidence later on. FILING OF COMPLAINT 35. The complaint at Exh.28 bears the date 26th May, 1998. The trial Court has not considered what is the effect of these dates mentioned in the TA/DA Bills. I will give my comment about effect of this evidence later on. FILING OF COMPLAINT 35. The complaint at Exh.28 bears the date 26th May, 1998. During cross-examination, complainant admits that he went to the Office of the Anti Corruption Bureau one day prior to the trap. He halted on that date at ACB Office, Buldhana (paragraph 13 of his evidence). There is a grievance that this complaint has not come on record. Defence tried to bring in evidence through Investigating Officer about complaint dated 25/05/1998. But, it is not successful. The complainant has admitted his signature on the complaint dated 26/05/1998. His attention was brought to the last portion of the complaint at Exh.28 which read as – “the report was read over to him and is correct”. He says that he personally has not read the report but it was read over to him. When shadow panch and another panch were called in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, there was verification of the contents of the complaint and both panchas have signed on it. The trial Court has given more weightage to this verification and considered the contents of complaint as an evidence. Now it needs to be seen whether simply because this verification has been done, the status of untestified complaint is upgraded? One cannot disbelieve the procedure followed by the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau in verifying the contents of the complaint in the presence of two panchas. But while deciding the truthfulness of the prosecution story, entire evidence has to be considered. REITERATION OF DEMAND 36. This happened when the complainant, both the panchas and Dy. S.P. Shri Khirsagar went to Buldhana to D.I.C. Office. Events can be classified broadly in two categories as follows:- a. Interaction with accused No.2-Doifode. b. Interaction and accepting the amount by accused No.1-Gade. INTERACTION WITH ACCUSED NO.2-DOIFODE 37. There are two versions. One is given by the complainant and second is given by the shadow panch witness No.2. Before the Court, the complainant has stated about meeting accused-Doifode, exchanging the documents and formal interaction with accused No.2 Doifode. He has resiled from his version before the police about enquiry made by accused No.2 Doifode about bringing the money. There are two versions. One is given by the complainant and second is given by the shadow panch witness No.2. Before the Court, the complainant has stated about meeting accused-Doifode, exchanging the documents and formal interaction with accused No.2 Doifode. He has resiled from his version before the police about enquiry made by accused No.2 Doifode about bringing the money. Whereas the shadow panch/P.W. No.2 has said: “the complainant asked him regarding remaining amount. Accused-Doifode asked the complainant whether he brought the amount. The complainant had said him that as per his say, he brought the amount”. About the exchange of documents and giving a receipt at Exh.30 there is no dispute. The complainant has also done some changes in contents of Exh.30. This receipt was issued by the supplier of Jute to complainant. The complainant did the correction so as to match it with the amount of cheque of Rs.5,240/-. In respect of this, there is no dispute. During cross-examination shadow panch had given following answers: “it is true to say that accused No.2 did not demand the amount from the complainant and as such the complainant did not pay the amount to him”. He has further answered as : “it is true to say that at that time accused No.2 Doifode had said to complainant that he would prepare the cheque and he should meet the accused No.1”. About the post conduct shadow panch has said: “as the accused No.2 Doifode did not make demand of money, he and complainant went beside the road and informed to Anti Corruption Officer and panch No.2” (para 23). However he has said: “it is true that the accused No.2 did not ask the complainant to pay the amount to accused No.1” (para 27). 38. Learned Advocate Shri Jaltare for the appellant argued that utterances of accused-Doifode stated by shadow witness cannot be believed upon for the reason that (a) It is not corroborated by the complainant. (b) When his client has not demanded the amount from the complainant, there was no reason for his client to make enquiry about bringing of the amount. According to him this utterance does not call within the meaning of demand. He submitted that there was a transaction of giving of loan and the complainant was accepting disbursal of remaining amount. (b) When his client has not demanded the amount from the complainant, there was no reason for his client to make enquiry about bringing of the amount. According to him this utterance does not call within the meaning of demand. He submitted that there was a transaction of giving of loan and the complainant was accepting disbursal of remaining amount. Furthermore, he submitted that the complainant was required to pay certain amount towards Government Guarantee Fee as per law. He wants to suggest that the utterances does not lead to an inference for demand of money as illegal gratification. (c) The trial Court has accepted this evidence while convicting the accused No.2 Doifode. INTERACTION & ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE BY ACCUSED NO.1-GADE 39. After meeting accused No.2-Doifode, it was told to the complainant, shadow panch to wait. There is variance in between their testimony as to where they sat, that is to say in the Varanda or outside the office. After accused No.1 came in the office, complainant met him. There are interactions with accused-Gade at three places. One is, when he was sitting on his table, second is in the Hotel/Chai-Tapri and third behind one Tapri. There is variance in between the evidence of complainant on one hand and evidence of shadow witness on the other hand on the point of this interaction. 40. The amount of bribe was handed over when they were standing backside of the Tapri. After the complainant gave signal, raiding party members and the panch PW-3 came there. If we read the evidence of the complainant, shadow panch/panch No.2, PW-3 Madhukar Padghan and Investigating Officer Shri Kshirsagar, the following things emerge :- (a) Head Constable Shri Santoshkumar and Police Constable Shri Ramesh caught hold the hands of accused-Gade and Investigating Officer Shri Kshirsagar verified acceptance of the amount by accused-Gade from the complainant and then accused was taken to the Office of Khadi & Village Industries. (b) Accused-Gade confirmed the acceptance of the amount then fingers of all raiding party members dipped in the solution, its colour has not changed. (c) With the help of a fresh solution, the fingers of both the hands of accused-Gade were dipped - colour changed to violet – two bottles seized. (d) When instructed by investigating Officer Shri Kshirsagar shadow panch took out the amount from the safari shirt of accused-Gade. (c) With the help of a fresh solution, the fingers of both the hands of accused-Gade were dipped - colour changed to violet – two bottles seized. (d) When instructed by investigating Officer Shri Kshirsagar shadow panch took out the amount from the safari shirt of accused-Gade. (e) It consists of one note of Rs.500/- denomination and 15 notes of Rs.100/- denomination. (f) Fresh solution was sprinkled on it – violet dots were noticed on the notes. (g) Personal search of accused-Gade was taken by shadow panch – certain usual articles were found – accused No.2 Doifode and Junior Clerk Khandare produced certain papers on the instructions of Investigating Officer Kshirsagar – they were seized. 41. Then the complainant was called inside the office and things which took place thereafter are as under : (a) His fingers were examined with the help of fresh solution – colour changed to violet – bottle along with solution was seized. (b) Right side Paijama’s pocket of the complainant, (wherein the complainant has kept powdered tainted notes) was examined with the help of fresh solution - Colour of the solution turned into violet – the bottle with solution was seized and sealed. (c) Necessary seizure-memos were prepared. Exh.35 is the seizure memo for producing the documents from the Senior Clerk Shri Khandare of Khadi Village Industries Board. (d) Exh. 36 is a seizure-memo for seizure of a solution for examining the fingers of complainant and the bottle containing solution for examining the Paijama pocket of the complainant. Exh.37 is the seizure of documents produced by accused No.2-Doifode. (e) Exh.58 is a seizure memo for seizure of solution for examining fingers of both the hands of accused No.1-Gade and for seizure of tainted notes. (f) Exh.59 is the map showing the Khadi Village Industries Office and the spot where the money was accepted. (g) Exh.46 and Exh.65 are the written statements given by accused No.2 and accused No.1 on 26/05/1998. 42. The Chemical Analyzer Report is at Exh.75. The report was positive. However, the forwarding letter to the Chemical Analyzer was not proved during evidence. The conclusion can be considered only when substantive evidence is reliable. In Exh.46, the accused No.2 has explained as to how he was brought to the Khadi Village Industries Office on the date of trap. He had gone for taking a tea. The report was positive. However, the forwarding letter to the Chemical Analyzer was not proved during evidence. The conclusion can be considered only when substantive evidence is reliable. In Exh.46, the accused No.2 has explained as to how he was brought to the Khadi Village Industries Office on the date of trap. He had gone for taking a tea. At that time, he was brought to the Office. This was shown to PW-3 and he has admitted giving of this statement. Whereas, Exh.65 was given during cross-examination of Investigating Officer. Accused No.1 has pleaded about giving of loan of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. It is for the purpose of repaying loan taken by him earlier. On the date of trap, he has returned that amount. But this explanation was attempted to put to PW-1 during cross-examination. But, it was halfhearted attempt. Learned Advocate Shri Tiwari has pointed out various inconsistencies in between the evidence of the complainant and shadow panch/PW-2. They are as follows: (a) After talking to accused No.2, the complainant and shadow panch were sitting in the Varanda (stated by complainant in paragraph 7), whereas shadow panch has said “thereafter he and the complainant came out from the office, met panch No.2 and raiding party members and informed to them about the incident” (paragraph 5). (b) At the table, accused-Gade inquired with the complainant about bringing of the amount. Thereafter, he told complainant to accompany him to the hotel. At the hotel, discussions has not taken place. But, accused – Gade asked the complainant to follow him to backside of the Tapri and there he demanded the money (as told by the complainant). (c) After arrival of accused-Gade, then complainant met him and told him “that accused-Doifode directed the complainant to meet accused-Gade” (paragraph 5). This does not find place in the evidence of the complainant. (d) At the hote l, accused-Gade inquired with the complainant about “bringing the amount and the complainant replied that he has brought Rs.2000/-. Then accused-Gade started walking from there”. This was stated by the shadow panch. Whereas, the complainant has not said anything about happening of this discussion at the hotel. (e) At the backside of the Tapri, accused-Gade demanded the amount from the complainant. It was paid to him from right side Paijama pocket by the complainant. Then accused-Gade started walking from there”. This was stated by the shadow panch. Whereas, the complainant has not said anything about happening of this discussion at the hotel. (e) At the backside of the Tapri, accused-Gade demanded the amount from the complainant. It was paid to him from right side Paijama pocket by the complainant. “Complainant has counted the amount as told by the shadow panch and kept it in right side safari pocket”. It is deposed by shadow panch. About counting of the amount, the evidence of the complainant is silent. 43. According to learned Advocate Shri Tiwari for the appellant, these are not natural variations, but they are of such type with creates a doubt whether the event have taken place as deposed by these two witnesses, whereas, according to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, they are the natural variations and they do not go to the root of the matter. CONCLUSION 44. The evidence and findings of the trial Court needs to be assessed qua every accused. I will give my findings hereinafter. The complainant has not supported the prosecution case so far as involvement of accused No.2 is concerned. The veracity of the evidence of the complainant is one of the factors for deciding the correctness of the findings against accused No.2. Hence, I will decide the evidence against the accused No.2 first. INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED NO.2 45. As discussed above, the evidence against accused-Doifode consists of [a] the contents of the complaint dated 26/05/1998 and [b] enquiry made by him about bringing of the amount by the complainant. The complainant was cross-examined by the prosecution as well as by every accused individually. The stage at which the learned Additional Public prosecutor (before the trial Court) sought “permission to declare the complainant as hostile” is an issue. When the complainant has not supported the prosecution case, at the beginning (even when he has not said anything about approaching the office of ACB), he was declared hostile. So, I am not going into the issue whether answers (given by the complainant thereafter) can be considered or not. I am considering them. 46. The questions are put to him by the learned Public Prosecutor which are permissible during cross-examination. At that stage, he gave admission about lodging of a complaint to ACB. So, I am not going into the issue whether answers (given by the complainant thereafter) can be considered or not. I am considering them. 46. The questions are put to him by the learned Public Prosecutor which are permissible during cross-examination. At that stage, he gave admission about lodging of a complaint to ACB. Inspite of several attempts, he has not given favourable answers so far as involvement of accused-Doifode is concerned. His attention was also brought to various particulars from his statement recorded after the trap. Several portion mark were given. They were not shown to investigation officer and got it proved. The accused No.1 Gade made attempts to bring on record the particulars in the statement showing involvement of his colleague accused-Doifode. His attempts were not successful. 47. Learned trial Judge has considered all the averments in the complaint and the statement against the accused-Doifode. The learned Judge had given weightage to verification of the contents of the complaint made through the panchas. I do not think that merely because the said verification has been done, the contents of the complaint can be upgraded and can be considered as an evidence. There are rules for considering the evidentiary use of such complaint. No doubt, it is not an F.I.R. as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time it is not a statement recorded under Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only the complaint given to police for initiating an enquiry. After the trap only, F.I.R. is registered. 48. It is difficult to understand on what basis learned Trial Court Judge has decided to consider the contents of the complaint as an evidence. He considered the contents of the complaint as true. However, he has forgotten the fact that those contents are not deposed by the complainant when oath was given to him. The learned trial Judge has forgotten the basic principle that the statement made before the Court on oath is an oral evidence and documents produced for the inspection before the Court are documentary evidence. The documents produced cannot be considered unless supported by oral evidence. The procedure for verification of the complaint through panchas is only for the purpose of increasing its weightage. The documents produced cannot be considered unless supported by oral evidence. The procedure for verification of the complaint through panchas is only for the purpose of increasing its weightage. If Court seized of the matter think that the complainant is giving false evidence by resiling from the complaint, the Court can issue a notice/conduct an enquiry for giving false evidence. The approach of considering the contents of the complaint is not appreciable. I differ with all those findings wherein contents of the complaint have been considered while concluding about involvement of accused-Doifode. MAKING INQUIRY BY ACCUSED-DOIFODE 49. The utterances by accused-Doifode while interacting with the complainant in the office have already been reproduced. There is variance on this aspect in between the evidence of complainant and shadow panch. Complainant has not said anything about inquiry as to bringing of an amount by accused-Doifode. Here also, the trial court wrongly believed on the averments in the complaint. Shadow panch has stated about “inquiry made by accused-Doifode about bringing of an amount”. The amount has not been specified. Further more, while reproducing the utterance of accused-Doifode, this shadow panch has not stated “for what purpose, the accused-Doifode expected the complainant to bring the amount”. The words of inquiry are very limited. They have to be understood as it is. However, they have to be appreciated in the manner expected by law. The prosecution cannot simply rely on the official involvement of the accused-Doifode in the loan transaction. That is not disputed. There can be a different meanings for utterance “have you brought the amount?”. It is pertinent to note that even complainant made enquiry about his remaining amount. He mean to say remaining amount of loan. Can we provide external aid to these wordings so as to infer that amount means towards illegal gratification. It is question of fact. 50. Without further specification, it will not be proper to connect “the inquiry about bringing the amount” with illegal gratification. It could have been used as a corroborative piece of evidence if there is strong evidence of demand of illegal gratification made by accused-Doifode. The learned Trial Judge has not considered from this angle and wrongly considered it as a circumstance to prove the demand by accused- Doifode. I disagree with it. 51. If this is so, then there is no other circumstance against accused-Doifode. The learned Trial Judge has not considered from this angle and wrongly considered it as a circumstance to prove the demand by accused- Doifode. I disagree with it. 51. If this is so, then there is no other circumstance against accused-Doifode. If the complainant could have stick up to averments in the complaint then question could have been different. The accused- Doifode needs to be given benefit of doubt. INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED NO.1 52. Apart from the individual circumstances against accused- Gade, reliability of evidence of complainant as a whole is also one of the factor. I have already expressed my opinion on the circumstance of (a) “delivery of the two cheques to the complainant” and (b) “alteration in the letter and the cheque”. The evidence on these two circumstances is not reliable and trustworthy. The attitude of the complainant in not deposing “about involvement of the accused-Doifode” is also having a material bearing on his reliability and trustworthiness. It is the incident of common visit by both the accused on the site is important. Before the ACB, the complainant has attributed active role to accused-Gade and passive role to accused- Doifode. Accused Gade demanded the amount, whereas accused- Doifode has consented by remaining present. Whereas, before the Court, the complainant has dropped the particulars about presence of accused-Doifode. 53. The issue is whether the remaining portion from his evidence showing involvement of accused-Gade can be considered? Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment in the case of Hazarilal (supra). There the Court has given weightage to a shadow panch and investigating Officer. 54. Both the accused have brought on record their muster and the TA/DA bills. As said above, the complainant is not certain about the dates of visit. One is by both the accused and accused-Doifode only visited Deulgaon Mahi. The second visit is not considered firstly because the evidence of complainant is silent about incriminating conversation by accused-Doifode and secondly, the entire prosecution evidence is not certain on the point of the place of handing over two cheques to the complainant. Even though, the evidence of complainant is not specific about the date of first visit, we can certainly presume it as 20th May, 1998. Because he has referred it in his complaint at Exh.28. 55. Even though, the evidence of complainant is not specific about the date of first visit, we can certainly presume it as 20th May, 1998. Because he has referred it in his complaint at Exh.28. 55. Both the accused have brought on record the muster and TA/ DA bills suggesting that on 20th May, 1998, both the accused were on tour. The muster & TA/DA Bills were included in the papers seized by the Investigating Officer on 26/05/1998 after the raid. At the time of investigation, the Investigating Officer was having two circumstances before him. One is visit of 20/05/1998 (which favours the prosecution case) and second is Muster & TA/DA Bills (which probably suggest of alibi). So during trial, there was responsibility on both the sides. Both the accused have got it proved muster at Exh.44 and TA/DA Bills at Exh.48 & Exh.53. It shows that on 20/05/1998, both the accused were on tour. The village of visit does not include Andhera. This conduct is sufficient to create doubt in prosecution of evidence about 20/05/1998 visit to Andhera. On this background, it was for the prosecution to prove that inspite of visits to those places (mentioned in TA/DA Bills), both the accused managed to visit Andhera on 20/05/1998. Those things do happen. But, how a Court can draw an inference. 56. The prosecution has not connected this evidence to the date of visit of both the accused at the site on 20th May, 1998. There may be reason for that. The prosecution was sure that if that evidence is considered, it will damage their theory of visit of both the accused on 20th May, 1998. The prosecution has lost that opportunity for the reason best known to them. 57. I think the prosecution ought to have examined more witness or documents to show that really the accused No.1 Gade along with accused No.2 Doifode had visited the site on 20th May, 1998 (on which date the first demand was made). It has not happened. It is pertinent to note that after this incident, the complainant has accepted two cheques. (Either at Deulgaon Mahi or in the office). So when the complainant was expecting last release of the cheque, he has chosen to approach the office of Anti Corruption Bureau. It is pertinent to note that he has not chosen to meet the higher officers. It is pertinent to note that after this incident, the complainant has accepted two cheques. (Either at Deulgaon Mahi or in the office). So when the complainant was expecting last release of the cheque, he has chosen to approach the office of Anti Corruption Bureau. It is pertinent to note that he has not chosen to meet the higher officers. So the defence is successful in creating doubt about visit dated 20/05/1998. If the visit is under doubt, the demand by accused No.1 cannot be believed without corroboration. REITERATION OF DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE 58. I have read the evidence of the complainant and shadow panch. Certain variances are natural. That is to say after interacting with accused-Doifode, when the complainant and shadow panch were waiting for accused-Gade, there is variance about the place where they are standing. That is to say in the varandha or outside the office. I consider it as immaterial. However, on following issues, I find variance in between their testimonies. It cannot be minor/natural. They are as follows:- (a) Immediately after meeting accused No.1 in the Office – What accused No.1 said As per Complainant - He asked whether he had brought the money As per Shadow Panch - Complainant said accused No.1 that accused No.2 directed him to meet him. Then accused No.1 asked complainant to wait outside (no talk on money) (b) Discussion in the Hotel As per Shadow Panch - After tea, complainant asked to give cheque of remaining amount. Then accused No.1 asked about amount. Complainant said abuot bringing of Rs.2,000/-. Then, accused No.1 went towards backside of Tapri (para 4). As per Complainant - After taking tea, accused No.1 said come to backside of Tapri (no talks about amount) (c) At backside of Tapri As per Complainant - Accused No.1 demanded amount. Complainant gave him and then given a signal (page 8) As per Shadow Panch - Accused No.1 demanded amount. Complainant given the amount. Complainant asked whether it is correct. Accused No.1 counted the amount. These two places are different. The hotel is different and Tapri is different. When the complainant was very much present at the hotel, he has not said about bringing the amount. This is a variance by way of omission. 59. On the second aspect, I find variance in between their evidence. Accused No.1 counted the amount. These two places are different. The hotel is different and Tapri is different. When the complainant was very much present at the hotel, he has not said about bringing the amount. This is a variance by way of omission. 59. On the second aspect, I find variance in between their evidence. It is on the point of giving details as to how the amount was parted away by the complainant to accused and what accused-Gade did about this amount. The complainant has not said “the accused-Gade counted the amount”. So this variance is also by way of omission. So also, the complainant has not said that “he is meeting accused No.1 as directed by accused No.2”. 60. I think the areas of variance as stated above relates to material particulars. If the complainant could have stated them, it must have assisted the Court in one manner. Learned Advocate Shri Tiwari for the appellant is right in emphasizing on this aspect. This Court has given benefit of variance in case of Rajendra Kumar Gupta (supra). Rest of the judgments relied upon by learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the point of importance of demand and what is the importance of presumption. Ultimately, it is a question of fact. We are dealing with a case wherein the complainant has favoured one accused and deposed against other accused. The official role of accused-Gade in the entire transaction of loan sanction is less as compared to the official role of accused-Doifode. The variances pointed out above are in the evidence of complainant. It is by way of omission. In fact, he is aggrieved. He is expecting to be more vigil. It is not found. 61. I find one more inconsistency in the prosecution evidence. It is on the point of actually who taken out the amount from the person of accused-Gade. It is the P.W. No.3 or Investigating Officer. PW No.3 himself has admitted that Mr. Kshirsagar Investigating Officer has taken out the tainted amount from the pocket of accused-Gade (para 6). It destroys the prosecution case that PW No.3 has taken out the amount. 62. From the above discussion, I find that the prosecution evidence against accused-Gade is not reliable and trustworthy. Mere acceptance of the amount does not help the prosecution case in discharging their burden. There has to be satisfactory evidence of demand. It destroys the prosecution case that PW No.3 has taken out the amount. 62. From the above discussion, I find that the prosecution evidence against accused-Gade is not reliable and trustworthy. Mere acceptance of the amount does not help the prosecution case in discharging their burden. There has to be satisfactory evidence of demand. The evidence of acceptance can be considered only when the foundation about demand is strong. Unfortunately, it is not there in this case. Learned trial Court has not considered these aspects. I differ with him. I intend to give benefit of doubt to accused-Gade also. VALIDITY OF SANCTION 63. Learned Advocate Shri Tiwari for the appellant relied upon a judgment in case of Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2015 (14) SCC 186 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue about the stage at which an objection to validity of the sanction can be taken. The provisions of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act were discussed. In that case the order of acquittal was reversed by the High Court and the issue of sanction was raised before Hon’ble Supreme Court. The issue of failure of justice was also considered. The findings of the High Court about the sanction were set aside. 64. However, in this case, I find no fault in the competency of Chief Executive Officer to grant sanction. I also find no fault in appreciating the materials placed before her and coming to a conclusion in granting sanction. The trial Court has dealt with the issue of sanction properly. I agree with the said findings. 65. As per Maharashtra Khadi and Village Industries Act, there is a Board constituted by the State Government. The Chief Executive Officer works under the superintendence and control of the Chairman as per Section 4 (4) of the said Act. It is pertinent to note that the Board has got power to make regulations thereby delegating the powers and duties to Chief Executive Officer. So, the Chief Executive Officer can grant sanction. 66. There is nothing wrong in sending and perusing the draft sanction. She has denied the suggestion that accused-Gade was working as a Auditor. In the muster at Exh-44 his post is described as ‘Lekhaparikshak’. Some may call him as a ‘Auditor’ or some may call him as a ‘Accountant’. So, the Chief Executive Officer can grant sanction. 66. There is nothing wrong in sending and perusing the draft sanction. She has denied the suggestion that accused-Gade was working as a Auditor. In the muster at Exh-44 his post is described as ‘Lekhaparikshak’. Some may call him as a ‘Auditor’ or some may call him as a ‘Accountant’. The sanction order is at Exh-73 and the forwarding letter is at Exh-74. There may not be date on first page of Exh.73, but date is there on the second page and on forwarding letter. She was also cross examined on the point of reading of statement given by accused-Gade. She has answered about its contents. In fact, it shows that she has read it and it is one of the indicator of applying the mind. After reading her evidence and contents of the sanction order there is a reason to believe that she has applied the mind prior to taking decision about giving sanction. FINAL CONCLUSION 67. For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to confirm the conclusions drawn by the trial Court. I am unable to give benefit of the citations relied upon by the learned A.P.P. to the prosecution. No doubt, every judgments assist us in understanding how to appreciate the evidence. But, the final conclusion depends upon kind of evidence adduced. After appreciating entire evidence, if still doubt in prosecution case persists, then the citations cannot be taken shelter. Benefit has to be given to accused. Both the appellants needs to be given benefit of doubt. The Investigating Agency during investigation and prosecution during trial could have clarified certain areas as mentioned hereinabove. If they could have been done, it could have removed the doubts. It has not happened. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not come to the help of the prosecution, because the evidence about foundational facts is not trustworthy. Hence, the order. ORDER i. Both the appeals are allowed. ii. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Buldhana on 24/08/2006 in Special Anti Corruption Case No.4/1999 is set aside. iii. Both the appellant viz. Maroti s/o Laxman Gade and Daulat s/o Arjun Doifode are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. iv. ii. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Buldhana on 24/08/2006 in Special Anti Corruption Case No.4/1999 is set aside. iii. Both the appellant viz. Maroti s/o Laxman Gade and Daulat s/o Arjun Doifode are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. iv. Fine paid, if any, by the appellants be returned to them.