ORDER :

This appeal has been filed questioning the validity of the judgment passed on 25.3.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2009 by the High Court of Delhi confirming the judgment dated 24.1.2009 passed by Special Judge, Central District­02, Delhi in C.C. No. 195 of 2001 convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”) and the order of sentence dated 27.1.2009 whereby for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act, the appellant was sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000/­ and in default, further simple imprisonment for 30 days and for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, rigorous imprisonment for 2½ years and fine of Rs. 15,000/­, in default, simple imprisonment for 30 days. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The appellant is an accused in a corruption case under the PC Act. As per prosecution allegations, the appellant, who was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 20(1) at the concerned point of time demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.15,000/­ from the complainant PW­3 Madhu Bala in regard to scrutiny of her case, which was pending with the appellant.

3. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 24.1.2009, concluded that on 7.3.2000, the appellant, while working as public servant (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 20(1)), demanded bribe from the complainant PW3­ Madhu Bala and in pursuance of his demand, accepted bribe/illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/­ from her on 9.3.2000 in his office (cabin/chamber). Thus by corrupt and illegal means, he abused his position as a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself. The appellant was found guilty for the charge under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act. The High Court relying upon the testimony of PW3­Madhu Bala, who was able to identify the conversation Exb. P2 (cassette) from the transcript though found inaudible and without proof of non­tampering the same, concluded that the demand was proved. On the point of acceptance, relying upon the version of PW3 Madhu Bala, who was said to put Rs. 15,000/­ in a note sheet towards visitors side of the table underneath a dak­pad and in reference to the CFSL report, proved the acceptance of bribe demanded by the appellant. In addition, drawing presumption under Section 20 of PC Act, confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and the sentence so awarded. Aggrieved by the said judgments, this appeal has been filed.

4. We have heard Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent at length and have perused the record.

5. In a case of corruption under the PC Act, what is essentially required to be proved is demand of money or illegal gratification by the accused, as well as acceptance and recovery of the same from the accused with motive. In the present case, as per the prosecution, the demand by the appellant from the complainant is alleged to be on four occasions. Twice on 07.03.2000 and again twice on 09.03.2000. On the first occasion on 07.03.2000, according to the complainant, the demand is said to have been made by the appellant through the Chartered Accountant namely; Mr. Rajiv Jain, according to whom, the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/­ for settlement of the case in favour of the complainant. Again on the said date itself, i.e. 07.03.2000, when she visited the office of the