IMPORTANT POINT
For sustaining charge u/s 13(1)(d) twin mandatory ingredients of taking bribe and obtaining pecuniary advantage have to be proved.

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Four persons were implicated as accused persons in FIR registered on 09.09.1993 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act') and Section 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). After investigation, when the chargesheet was filed on 19.01.1998, one more person (who is the appellant before us) was also added as an accused. Chargesheet was filed under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and under Sections 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. Charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused persons. Matter went on trial and resulted in acquittal of A-2 and A-3 from all the charges and conviction of A-1, A-4 and A-5 (i.e. the appellant) under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. These accused persons i.e. A-1, A-4 and A-5 were, however, acquitted of the charges under Sections 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2) No appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of A-2 and A-3. A-1, A-4 and A-5 filed appeals in the High Court challenging their conviction. A-1 and A-4 passed away during the pendency of their appeals and, therefore, those appeals have abated. Thus, it is only the appellant who remains in the fray. His appeal was taken up by the High Court for hearing and was ultimately dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 25.05.2006. Thus, in this appeal, we are only concerned with A-5 (the appellant). With these introductory remarks, we advert to the meat of the matter.

3) The appellant was working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD) attached to Arudai, NES Block within the jurisdiction of which Vandiperiyar Panchayat situates. The said Panchayat decided to construct the first floor of the existing high school building situated in the Panchayat area, by including the work under Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY). As per the procedure followed under the D.R.D. Scheme the work was included in the JRY to be carried out by a nominee selected from the beneficiary of the work. Accordingly, one Rajarathinam (A-3) was selected as nominee, awarding the said work of construction. Appropriate agreement was executed by him. The total estimate was for Rs. 4 lakhs which was to be met out of the fund of JRY and of Panchayat. Payment for the work was to be effected as per the guidelines issued by the Government including Ex. P/17 which provided that the Panchayat could make advance payment upto 50% of the estimate amount. It was also mentioned therein non-adherence to the aforesaid procedure would be termed as irregular.

4) The case of the prosecution was that all the accused persons colluded together and A-1, A-2 and A-4 disbursed the amount to A-3, the nominee, on the basis of the 'stage certificate' which was issued by A-5, the Assistant Engineer in respect of the part completion of the work. Ex. P/16(a) was treated as the stage certificate, which in fact is the letter dated 9.6.1992 wherein the appellant had certified that 25% of the work in question had been completed. Payments were effected to the nominee on 25.03.1992, 21.04.1992, 16.05.1992 and 21.10.1992 at the rate of Rs.25,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.7,000/-and Rs. 1 lakh. Payments were effected by Ex.P/7, P/10, P/12 and P/14 respectively. The prosecution alleged that the last and largest of these payments, i.e. Rs. 1 lakh, was made on the basis of purported 'stage certificate' [Ex.P/16(a)] issued by the appellant. It was alleged that the false stage certificate was issued as 25% of the work had not been completed. In this way, the appellant abused his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage.

5) In nutshell, the gravamen of the charge against the appellant is that while working as the Assistant Engineer, he issued stage certificate in respect of the contract that was awarded to A-3 and on the basis of these certificates, payment to the extent of 50% of the contract value was receiv