JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant, a City Survey Officer in the Revenue Department of the State of Maharashtra, has been convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Prosecution’s case unfolded in the evidence is; Complainant’s father, Rama died in April, 1991. In September, 1991, he applied to enter the names of heirs of late Rama in records of lands bearing CTS Nos.827, 832, 886 and 9043 maintained by the Revenue Department. The appellant, revenue officer, demanded Rs.200/- to process his request and for issuing property register cards in respect of four lands as aforesaid. Complainant paid Rs.125/- to him somewhere in October, 1991 leaving the balance of Rs.75/-. Whereafter, the complainant was called by the accused in the office on 22nd October, 1991 and again on 28th October, 1991, but by that time, application was not processed. On 28th October, 1991, accused demanded Rs.100/- (balance Rs.75+25), reward for issuing property register cards. Following that he lodged the complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau. 3. After drawing verification and pre-trap panchanamas, raiding party proceeded to the office of the appellant-accused. Mr. Koregawe, Panch Witness (P.W.2) accompanied the complainant. Evidence would disclose that accused handed over, four property register cards; whereupon he demanded and accepted, Rs.100/- from the complainant. Raiding party after giving signal, rushed to office and apprehended the appellant and recovered Rs.100/-, ‘tainted currency’, notes from his possession. 4. The learned Trial Judge upon appreciating the evidence, convicted the appellant as stated above and hence, this Appeal. 5. The defence of the accused is, that on 28th October, 1991, complainant had applied for certified copies of the property register cards and survey maps of the land survey nos.827, 832, 886 and 904. Thus, Rs.100/- were paid towards fees of the maps. Strong reliance has been placed on Exhibit 24. Vide this exhibit, complainant applied for certified copies of the property register cards and survey maps as required by the bank. Complainant admits this fact. 6. Thus, Rs.100/- were paid towards fees of the maps. Strong reliance has been placed on Exhibit 24. Vide this exhibit, complainant applied for certified copies of the property register cards and survey maps as required by the bank. Complainant admits this fact. 6. Thus, question that falls for consideration is; “whether Rs.100/- allegedly demanded and accepted by the accused was “illegal gratification” other than legal remuneration as motive for processing his application and for issuing property register cards and survey maps of lands in question or whether it was towards ‘Fees’ for obtaining the survey maps of the lands in question?” 7. It may be stated that the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Inspection, Search and Supply of Copies of Land Records) Rules, 1970 regulates procedure and prescribes fees for supply of copies of land records. 8. To answer this question, evidence of Sirajuddin Mulla (P.W.2), immediate superior ofcer of the appellant and the evidence of Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune Division is relevant. Siraj deposed entire procedure contemplated under Sections 148 and 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in relation to record of rights and acquisition of rights to be reported. He testified that two days before 29th October, 1991 (a day on which trap was laid), he had supplied survey maps to the office of the accused. Another witness, Deputy Director in his evidence has placed on record, schedule of fees prescribed by the Government Photo Zink Press, Pune to be charged for supplying survey maps. Minimum fees prescribed is Rs.49/- per map of specifed size. 8A. In the back-drop of the evidence of these two witnesses, let me now assess the evidence of Satappa Gopal Chandrekar (P.W.5), who was working as peon in the office of the accused. His evidence suggests that on 27th October, 1991, office of the accused had received survey maps of five villages; but same were not sorted out as per the villages and wards. He stated that on 30th September, 1991 (a month before the trap), complainant visited office of the accused and paid fine of Rs.5/- as he did not report death of his father and acquisition of rights by succession in relation to lands in question within the prescribed period. His evidence further suggests that on 30th September, 1991, complainant had also asked for two maps and accused told him, charges for the same would be Rs.98/-. 9. His evidence further suggests that on 30th September, 1991, complainant had also asked for two maps and accused told him, charges for the same would be Rs.98/-. 9. Thus, conjoint reading of the evidence of, Chandrekar, peon (P.W.5), Sirajuddin Mulla (P.W.2)-Immediate Superior Officer of the accused and of P.W.4-Deputy Director of Land Records, fortify two facts; (I) that complainant required, copies of property register cards and survey maps of the subject lands, as is evident from Exhibit 24, and; (ii) that scheduled fee was Rs.48/- per map. Admittedly, the trap was laid on 29th October, 1991 and on the same day, complainant had applied for certified copies of the map. Evidence on record leads to believe that maps could not be supplied on 30th September, 1991, since and by that date, maps were not supplied to the office of the accused. Immediate superior of the accused testified that maps were supplied to the office of the accused two days before 29th October, 1991. 10. As a matter of fact, evidence of Koregawe leads to believe that accused after handing over property register card extracts, assured the complainant to give survey maps later and enquired whether he had brought money as agreed. This version of the witness cannot be read in isolation but in conjunction with the evidence of Chandrekar (P.W.5). So much so that Chandrekar said, on 30th September, 1991 when complainant visited office of the accused and asked for survey maps, he was told charges for the same would be Rs.98/-. Indisputably, complainant applied for certified copies of the maps on 28th October, 1991, a date on which trap was laid. In the given set of facts, prosecution evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Rs.100/- were demanded and accepted by the appellant as reward or illegal gratification for processing the application and/or for giving property extracts and/or for supply of survey maps of the land in question. Thus, ‘benefit of doubt’ is extended to the appellant. 11. Thus, in consideration of the facts of the case, the evidence on record and for the reasons stated here-in-above, question is answered accordingly. 12. Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence dated 24th December, 1997 in Special Case No.6 of 1992 passed by the Special Judge, Kolhapur, is set aside. Bail bond stands cancelled. Sureties are discharged. 13. Fine amount to be refunded to the appellant.