IMPORTANT POINT
Demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification is sine qua non of offence under section 7 and 13.
Presumption can be drawn from facts, not from another presumption.
Unless ingredients of section 7 are proved, there cannot be any presumption and its rebuttal under section 20.
Appellate order failing to notice very important lacuna in investigation is not tenable.

JUDGMENT

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 07.01.2011 and order on sentence dated 08.03.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.337 of 1999 by the High Court of Delhi, whereby the High Court reversed the order of acquittal dated 11.03.1999 recorded by the Trial Court in C.C No. 19 of 1993 and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) with rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. The appellant has prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and to acquit him from the charge urging various facts and grounds in support of the questions of law framed in this appeal.

2. For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder:

The complainant, Ramesh Suri (PW-2), was running a business of import and export of buttons, zips, etc. in the name and style of M/s Erica Enterprises. It is alleged that the appellant along with his colleague P.S.Saini (both Inspector Customs (Preventive)) visited the office cum godown of the complainant (PW2) on 4.07.1989 and that P.S.Saini demanded a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant, one lakh each for himself and the accused as the articles kept in the godown were notified goods and since his firm was not a notified dealer, the complainant has violated the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.

3. Further, on 07.07.1989, it is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant telephonically contacted the complainant (PW-2) and reiterated the demand as made by P.S.Saini. During the time of telephonic conversation, the brother-in-law of the complainant Ram Malhotra was sitting with him. The complainant said only an amount Rs.60,000/-could be arranged by him and the same was delivered at the residence of the appellant on 08.07.1989 at 8.00 a.m. as the rest of the amount would be arranged within 3-4 days and will be paid to the appellant.

4. It is alleged that on the written complaint lodged in the CBI office and on the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police a raid was conducted in the house of the appellant with the help of the complainant and a shadow witness (PW-3), the appellant was arrested on 8.7.1989. The charge sheet was filed by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the court of Special Judge on the basis of which it has framed

The charge against the appellant for trial for offence punishable under section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act.

5. The Trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion and held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Act and recorded the acquittal of the appellant from the charges vide its judgment and order dated 11.03.1999.

6. The respondent-prosecution, aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court has filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi urging various grounds. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 07.01.2011 reversed the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. The correctness of the same is challenged in this appeal by the appellant by raising certain legal questions and urging grounds in support of the same.

7. It is contended by Mr. Altaf Ahmed, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that P.S. Saini on all the occasions demanded the bribe money from the complainant but he was neither arr