IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained when there are glaring inconsistencies insofar as amount of money demanded.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A trap sprung, on a complaint lodged, led to the prosecution and conviction of an Enforcement Inspector and Office Assistant in the Supply Department for demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.¹ [“P.C. Act”] Both the accused were sentenced under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) with rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- and a further sentence of R.I. for six months under Section 7(2) of the Act, also with a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default sentences for failure to pay the fine.

3. The complaint leading to the trap, was laid by PW-5, who applied for a Rajasthan Trade Authority (RTAL), at the District Supply Office, for carrying on sale of food grains and edible oils. Processing the said application, an inspection was conducted in the shop, for which the license was applied for, by the Enforcement Inspector; by name Madan Lal, the 2nd accused, who at the time of inspection demanded bribe for speeding up the issuance of license. Following up with the demand, PW-5 reached the DSO at Sri Ganganagar on the very next day and met the Enforcement Officer as also the Office Assistant; Narendra Kumar, the 1st accused, when the latter demanded bribe for both the accused. PW-5 had paid the license fee of Rs. 1000/- and being distraught with the demand of bribe, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau² [“ACB”] who laid the trap on the very next day. The prosecution was built upon the demand alleged by PW-5 and the trap proceedings, which ensued the complaint to the ACB.

4. We have heard Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd accused, and Ms. Arundhati Katju, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st accused. For the State, arguments were put forth by Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, the learned Government Counsel.

5. PWs 1, 2, 6 and 7 were independent witnesses. PW-3, an Inspector of the ACB and PW-4, a Constable, comprised the trap team led by PW-8, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The accused examined two witnesses as DW-1 and 2.

6. The Trial Court found that the statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973³ [“Cr.P.C.”] and Exhibit P-1, the complaint filed before the ACB, supports the statements made in relation to the demand. Asfar as the receipt of the amount, reliance was placed on the official witnesses; while the independent witnesses PWs 1 and 2, though declared hostile, have spoken in tandem with the official witnesses as to the setting up of the trap, who also confirmed their signatures on the mahazar drawn at the spot. The High Court also found the various contentions raised by the accused and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court, leading to the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed.

7. Before us, it was argued that the demand was not proved since the statement of PW-5 complainant, had many inconsistencies and differs considerably from Exhibit P-1-complaint. It was argued that the demand is spoken only by PW-5 and it is unbelievable, especially since the 2nd accused had on the very same day of the inspection recommended the issuance of license, which, even according to the complainant was handed over to him at the venue of the trap, simultaneous to the trap. The contention of both the accused was that the money was thrust upon them and in the scuffle ensuing, some currency notes were scattered on the floor which the police team who entered the room directed the accused to pick up. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on washing the hands and dress of the accused, with the test solution. There is no demand or acceptance as coming out from the evidence led.

8. On the other hand, the learned Government Counsel asserts that the trap proceedings successfully caught the accused red-handed. The demand was spoken of by the complainant and all the official witnesses spoke of the receipt of the money, which was further validated by the test