Illegal gratification is essential for constituting an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient in the absence of evidence regarding 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the amount as illegal gratification.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

1. Appellant, a peon in the Thane District Court, was found and held, guilty for demanding and accepting Rs.300/- as illegal gratification for supplying certified copies of the judgment to the complainant. Thus, for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-; and simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-; respectively.

2. Mr. Tapan, complainant in this case, was prosecuted and tried in Criminal Case No. 3629/2004. He was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 31st January, 2008. After pronouncing the judgment in the open Court on 31st January, 2008, complainant applied for certified copies, on the same day, vide Application No. 161/2008 dated 31st January, 2008. The complainant paid copying charges and copies were to be delivered/supplied on 4th February, 2008.

3. It is unfolded in the evidence that, though the judgment was delivered in the open Court on 31st January, 2008, Pradeep Narvekar, stenographer typed the judgment on 3rd February, 2008.

4. Complainant deposed, after applying for the certified copies on 31st January, 2008, accused who was working as Peon in Court Room No.8 demanded Rs.2,000/- from him for supplying the certified copies of the judgment urgently and asked the complainant to bring money on the next day. When he met the complainant on 01st February, 2008, he alleged the accused repeated the demand and he paid Rs.300/- to him. At that time, accused told him that unless full sum demanded is not paid, he would not receive copies of the judgment and may have to wait for a month. Evidence shows that, complainant deposed that he paid Rs.1,000/- to the accused since he needed the copies urgently, to file proceedings in the High Court, whereupon the accused gave his mobile contact number to him on the chit and asked him to call and meet on the next day i.e. 2nd February, 2008.

5. Shortly thereafter, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Office at Thane. Mr. Powar, verified the complaint in the presence of panchas and after completing the formalities, handed over currency notes to the complainant after applying anthracin powder to it. Accordingly, verification and pre-trap panchanama were drawn. Investigating Officer asked the complainant to contact the accused on his mobile and conversation was recorded in the digital voice recorder. Mr. Rathod, pancha witness accompanied the complainant. The other raiding party members were waiting outside the court building. Permission of Hon’ble District Judge was sought to lay the trap. Complainant deposed that, accused enquired with him, whether he had brought the money as agreed and asked to hand over to him. Following that, complainant paid Rs.800/- to the accused. The conversation was recorded on the digital voice recorder which was attached to the shirt pocket of the complainant. After giving signal, the raiding party recovered tainted money found on the person of the accused which had traces of anthracin powder. Soon thereafter, FIR was filed. Upon perusing the final report, charge was framed under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence, convicted the peon as aforesaid against which this Appeal is preferred.

6. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Shinde, learned APP for State.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused and the State and perused the evidence. The question that falls for my consideration is; (i) whether the prosecution has proved that the appellant had demanded Rs.800/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or a reward to favour the complainant for urgently supplying the copies of the judgment passed in Criminal Case No. 3629/2004 which was pronounced and dicta