The court upheld the principle that the demand of gratification is the foundation of 'trap cases' and emphasized the need for satisfactory evidence of the initial demand. The court also highlighted that the acceptance of money and other circumstances can constitute circumstantial evidence of the demand, and that lack of corroboration to the evidence of the initial demand should be viewed with caution.

This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd January 2010 passed by the Special Judge, Mumbai in Special case No.17 of 2003, convicting the appellant, who was the accused in the said case, of offences punishable under sections 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C. Act).

2. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer RI for 6(six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) month with respect to the offence punishable under section 7 of the P.C. Act and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/in default to suffer RI for 1(one) year with respect to the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The learned Judge directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

3. The allegation against the appellant, as levelled in the police report under section 173 (2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the appellant, who was, at the material time, working as a Senior Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) at Byculla Telephone Exchange, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), Mumbai, abused his official position by demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of Rs.500/from Shri Shaikh Jamshed, as a reward for showing favour to the said Shaikh Jamshed by reducing the bank guarantee executed by the said Jamshed from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

4. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial court, may in brief be stated as under:

Shaikh Jamshed, a resident of Byculla, at the material time, used to run one STD/PCO booth at Byculla in the name and style of 'Elite Business Center'. His STD booth was having two STD connections. Shaikh (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') had furnished bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.35,000/- to the MTNL as security against the bills of the said STD/PCO booth, as per the requirement of the MTNL. The bank guarantee was initially submitted in the year 1997, and thereafter, it was renewed from time to time. That, the complainant came to know that subsequently the bank guarantees given by the other PCO owners, some of whom were having bills of a greater amount than of the complainant's STD/PCO booth, were reduced. That, the bank guarantee furnished by the complainant expired in the month of February 2002. He was then called by the appellant who, as aforesaid, was working as Senior Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) in MTNL at the material time, for renewal of bank guarantee. The complainant met the appellant and informed him that his business had been reduced, and that therefore, the bank guarantee be lowered. The appellant advised the complainant to give a bank guarantee for a period of six months only instead of three years and, accordingly, the bank guarantee was given for a period of six months. In the second week of September 2002, the complainant was again asked to renew the bank guarantee. The complainant, therefore, met the appellant in his office on 12th September 2002. When the complainant requested the appellant to reduce the amount of bank guarantee, the appellant expressed his inability to do so as per the rules. The complainant explained to the appellant that other PCO owners having higher bills than him had given a lesser bank guarantee than that required from him. The appellant then told the complainant that if the complainant would pay him Rs.1,000/- as a bribe, then he would lower the amount of bank guarantee to Rs.25,000/. The appellant said that the bank guarantee amount would not be reduced unless the complainant would give the appellant his share. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount demanded by the appellant, the appellant reduced his demand asking the complainant to pay to him an amount of Rs.500/. The appellant also told the complainant that this amount of