The demand of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must establish foundational facts and valid sanction for prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 22/03/2012 passed by the Special Judge, Gadchiroli in Special (ACB) Case No.5 of 1996, convicting the Appellant/Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1988”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rupees One Thousand, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rupees Two Thousand in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under :

Complainant Yadeorao was intending to have a telephone connection of B.S.N.L. at his residence. He filled the form and also deposited Rs.1200/- as asked by the concerned officer. However, after waiting for long period he met the accused, thereupon, he demanded Rs.2,000/- for early installation. However, when the complainant was not interested in the telephone connection and sought withdrawal of the deposited money, the accused reduced the amount and asked him to pay Rs.1500/- for early installation.

3. Again on 01/06/1996, when the complainant met the accused, he asked him whether he brought Rs.1,500/-. However, as the complainant was not intending to give bribe, he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Gadchiroli on 04/06/1996.

4. As the accused was a Central Government servant, ACB Officer, Gadchiroli took the complainant to C.B.I. Office, Nagpur, where the complaint was lodged.

5. On next day, i.e. on 05/06/1996 complainant was called to A.C.B. Office, Gadchiroli and thereafter all the necessary formalities and procedure for trap were followed.

6. Thereafter, the complainant and the panch No.1 had gone to the office of the accused and on inquiry by the accused regarding amount, the complainant gave him the tainted currency notes of Rs.1500/- which were accepted by him. Thereafter, a predetermined signal was given by the complainant and the raiding party caught hold the accused. Both the hands of the complainant and accused, were examined in the sodium carbonate liquid and the colour of the liquid was changed. After completing required procedure, post-trap panchnama was prepared and the investigation was thereafter handed over to C.B.I., Nagpur.

7. After completion of the investigation the papers were sent for sanction and on receiving the sanction to prosecute the accused/ appellant, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

8. Thereafter, charge was framed and read-over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. The defence of the accused was of total denial. The statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. The accused had also given his written say below Exh.88 in his defence.

10. The learned trial Court, after marshalling the oral as well as documentary evidence, passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22/03/2012 and thereby convicted the appellant/ accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988, the same is under challenge in this appeal.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the C.B.I.

12. Shri R.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Special Court erred in convicting the appellant in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence on the point of demand and acceptance of alleged illegal gratification.

13. He submits that, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the guilt against the appellant, for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(