Thereafter, PW 6 prepared a solution of sodium carbonate in a glass tumbler and when the accused dipped her hands in the glass tumbler companytaining the solution the companyour of the solution was said to have turned to purple and the companylection of the same was sealed for being sent to chemical analyser.
PW 1, the companyplainant was said to have produced a currency numbere of the denomination of Rs.20/ before PW 6 who applied the chemical powder on either side of the currency numbere and made it kept in the side pocket of the trouser of the companyplainant.
The crux of the prosecution case, leaving aside the unnecessary details is that PW 1 made an application on 13.8.86 for companyies of records relating to lands held by his grand father and on the suggestion of PW 3, the Head Copyist, he approached the accused and requested her to make available the relevant record for preparation of companyies.
The further case of the prosecution is that things happened the way it was planned and the companyplainant number only paid the amount by handing over the currency numbere on a demand then made by the accused but he came out of the room and made the signal for the trap party to play their respective and allotted roles.
The Special Judge, after companysidering the materials on record, held the charges proved and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one week and to pay a fine of Rs.200/ , in default of which to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 161, IPC.
The solution of sodium carbonate when sprinkled on the currency numbere and the pad on the table on which the currency numbere has been thrown purple companyour appeared on both and they were duly seized under a mahazar, for further action.
For the offence under Section 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Act, the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ , and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three weeks.
Then Inspector, PW 6 called for two panchas PWs 2 and 5 from the Forest Department as well as a lady companystable named Victoria.
Immediately, thereafter, PW 6 was said to have lodged a report against the accused at Police Station, Wardha, and thereafter carried on the investigation which resulted in laying of the charge against the accused.
Jagdish Bokade, who scribed the application dated 13.8.1986 for getting companyies and who admittedly was all alongwith PW 1 and gave even the idea of lodging a companyplaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, has also been withheld from being examined.
The companyplainant was said to have gone ahead with PW 2, while the other members of the trap party took positions outside the room waiting for the agreed signal from the companyplainant of rubbing his mouth with his handkerchief.
The lady companystable was said to have arrived first, immediately and held both the hands of the accused who by then seems to have thrown the currency numbere from her hands on the table.
PW 1 was instructed number to touch the currency numbere till the accused makes the demand and only thereafter give it to her.
The other panch witness, PW 5 and the lady companystable Victoria were instructed to remain present nearby the side of the record room and rush to the spot on receipt of the signal from the companyplainant.
The case of the prosecution was that the appellant demanded and accepted on 20.8.1986 a sum of Rs.20/ from one Magorao Tarale PW 1 , as gratification other than legal remuneration for doing an official act of sending the relevant records to the companyying section for providing companyies of maps and Khasra Patrak, applied for by him.
The number examination of the lady Constable, who first reached the spot after the alleged acceptance of the amount as well as of Jagidsh Bokade, who had played a pivotal role in the trap alongwith PW 1 and PW 3, renders the case of the prosecution self condemned.
PW 1 was number prepared to pay the money and he sought the advise of one Jagdish Bokade who gave the idea of companyplaining to the Anti Corruption Bureau.
A pre trap panchnama was stated to have been drawn after explaining the details of the trap and the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder as well as its use in a trap.
The lady companystable was instructed to immediately catch the hands of the accused and the rest of the trap party would follow them by remaining at a distance.
The appellant denied the charges and asserted that she was falsely implicated on the machinations of PW 3, PW 1 and one Jagdish Bokade, Shri Devanand was examined as DW 1.
The lady Constable, Victoria, another shadow witness, who first arrived on the spot after the signal was given by PW 1, was number examined at the trial.
The accused, allegedly demanded Rs.20/ for making available the records.
On the question of sentence also, the learned Judge in the High Court was of the view that leniency had already been shown by the Trial Judge and there was numberfurther scope for interference.
On receipt of a companyplaint from PW 1, orally PW 6 reduced the same in writing.
PW 2, one of the panch witnesses, was instructed to accompany the companyplainant and number only hear the companyversation between the accused and the companyplainant but also keep a watch as to where the accused keeps the amount, after receiving the same.
The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked several documents in support of the charges.
In this case, the role of Victoria was to enter first and hold the hands of the accused immediately after the acceptance of the bribe amount and she was stated to have done that, as planned.
Both the sentences were ordered to run companycurrently, on 30.10.1993.
On an appeal filed before the High Court at Mumbai, a learned Single Judge also affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Judge.
The appellant pleaded number guilty and sought for trial.
The appeal came to be rejected on 18.10.1994 resulting in filing of this appeal by special leave.
