IMPORTANT POINT
Unless both the ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe is established, a person cannot be convicted u/s 7 and 13 of P.C. Act, 1988.

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 7 along with a fine of Rs. 3000/- with a default clause and for a period of two and a half years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- with the usual default clause for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d).

2. The case of the prosecution as narrated before the courts below was that P.W 3 Hamid Khan, the complainant who was running a tailoring shop at F-237, New Seemapuri, Delhi applied for a licence in the year 1994 to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [the M.C.D], Health Department located in Shahdara Zone, Delhi. In April, 1995, he received a letter from M.C.D calling upon him to furnish some documents for running the tailoring shop. After furnishing those documents when no further communication was forthcoming from the M.C.D, he approached the appellant who was an employee in the M.C.D, who was the concerned person dealing with his application.

3. According to P.W 3, when he met the appellant on 5th May, 1995 at 3:00p.m in the office of the appellant, the appellant informed him that to carry out the issuance of licence to him, P.W 3 will have to pay a fee and that he should pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred) by way of bribe amount. As P.W.3 - the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount he stated to have preferred a complaint with the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation [for short ‘the C.B.I’] who in turn organised a trap and along with P.W 3 - the complainant and a shadow witness P.W 6 was also arranged. The formalities for carrying out the trap were all set on 8th May, 1995. P.W 3 - complainant along with P.W 6, the shadow witness went to the office of the appellant on 9th May, 1995 and met the appellant and in the course of the conversation when P.W.3 - complainant inquired as to whether his job for issuance of licence was carried out, the appellant stated to have answered in the affirmative and in turn wanted to know whether his demand of payment of bribe was ready.

4. When P.W 3 - the complainant informed him that he has brought what was demanded by the appellant, the appellant directed P.W 3 the complainant to go along with A2, one Janakraj to whom P.W 3 was directed to handover the money, i.e, the demanded bribe money. Thereafter A2 Janakraj is stated to have taken P.W 3 along with P.W 6 to a nearby park outside the office of M.C.D where the money was stated to have been handed over to A2 and thereafter as per the signal waived by P.W 6, the C.B.I party reached the spot and A2 was confronted from whom the money paid by P.W 3 was recovered and the hand wash was also taken. When A2 pleaded with the C.B.I official that he never demanded and that what was paid to him by P.W 3 was at the instance of the appellant and A2 was directed by the C.B.I officials to go to the chamber of the appellant and carry out directions of the appellant without showing any other gesture. A2, as directed, stated to have gone into the chamber of the appellant along with P.Ws 3, 6 and others. It was based on the above narration of the prosecution, the charge was laid against the appellant along with A2 - Janakraj.

5. The key witnesses examined in support of the charge of the demand, acceptance and recovery as against the accused were P.Ws 3 and 6 namely, the complainant and the shadow witness. The trial court after considering the entire evidence ultimately found that A2 - Janakraj was not guilty of the charge of the charges made against him and acquitted him. The appellant was convicted for the offence referred to above and was imposed with the sentence as mentioned above. The High Court having confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, the appellant is before us.

6. We have heard Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh fo