In order to establish a charge of bribery under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing any favor or disfavor in the exercise of his official functions.

T. K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. :- This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the Respondents Ramdas Shankar Kurlekar (Accused No. 1) and Bhalchandra Dattatraya Kasodkar (Accused No. 2) by the impugned order dated 8th and 9th of August 1984 by Special Case No. 29 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Greater Bombay. The respondent No. 1 was charged for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and under Section 161 of the I.P.C. and respondent No. 2 was charged for the offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and Section 109 and 265-A read with Section 161 of the I.P.C.

2. The charge against the first respondent in short was that while he was employed as Chief Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Bombay Division, Bombay, was holding the charge of the post of Assistant Commissioner (advertisement) at Head quarters, Bombay, attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 2000/- and accepted the sum of Rs. 1500/- on 8-8-1997 and 29-8-1977 as part payment through respondent No. 2 as gratification other than legal remuneration, for showing a favour or disfavour in exercise of official function to one Mr. Malhotra in the matter of prosecution against Smt. Malhotra under the provisions of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 vide C.R.No. 71/77 for allegedly releasing leaflets containing objectionable matter used by Smt. Malhotra and on 3-10-1977 attempted to obtain balance of Rs. 500/- through the respondent No. 2.

3. The allegation against the respondent No. 2 in short was that while he was employed as Drug Inspector, Intelligence Branch, Food and Drug Administration, Bombay Division attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 2000/- and accepted the amount of Rs. 2000/- in all in the aforesaid dates as part payment for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive to do official acts or showing favour in the official function of respondent No. 1, in the matter or prosecution against Smt. Malhotra wife of Mr. Malhotra, and aided and abetted the respondent No. 1 to commit the offences referred to above.

4. The Court below by the impugned judgment acquitted the first respondent for the reason that the allegations against him has not been proved. The second respondent also was acquitted by the Court below on the ground that since first respondent was acquitted of the offences and charge against second respondent was only abetment of committing offence by the first respondent. The charge against the second respondent is not sustainable.

5. The prosecution story goes thus : Mr. M. B. Malhotra was the Chief Executive of Ramon Services Pvt. Limited and an associated company Figurette Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He had started a business of manufacture and sale of certain instruments for the development of male organ, which was a mail order business. This business was carried out in the name of his wife Mrs. Malhotra. The respondent No. 1 was the Chief Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Bombay Division and he was holding charge of Assistant Commissioner (advertisement), Head quarters, Bombay at the relevant time whereas the respondent No. 2 was working under respondent No. 1 as a Drug Inspector, Intelligence Branch, Food and Drugs Administration, Bombay. The a respondent No. 1 and his staff along with the police officers went to the house of Mr. and Mrs. Malhotra on 4-8-1977 and seized certain leaflets and booklets connected with the business of Mr. Malhotra. It was alleged that there was some objectionable matter in the leaflets and booklets distributed by them during the course of their business which was styled as 'Ultranorm'. As the result of this seizure a case was registered against Mrs. Malhotra under the provisions of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Adve