The evidence must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dtd. 26/9/2005, passed by the Special Judge, Latur, in Special Case No.5 of 2004, whereby original appellant (since deceased) was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act, 1988') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year, respectively and pay total fine of Rs.1,500.00 (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and one month, respectively.

2. The appellant passed away pending the appeal. His legal representatives came on record to pursue the appeal.

3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The original appellant was serving as Deputy Engineer (P.W.D.), Zilla Parishad at Ausa. PW1 - Syed Jamil was in construction business. His father was the Chairman of a cooperative society, "Lokmanya Mazoor Sahakari Sanstha Limited", Ausa. The work of a road, Yeli to Tupdi was to be undertaken under 'Employment Guarantee Scheme'. A tender as regards transportation and road roller work was issued. The District Deputy Registrar, Latur was requested to give a letter of recommendation for grant of said work to Lokmanya Mazoor Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Ausa. Accordingly, the District Deputy Registrar had issued a letter in the name of Sub-Divisional Engineer (P.W.D.), recommending for grant of the tender in favour of the said cooperative society. PW1 - Syed Jamil had therefore been to the office of the original appellant. The appellant asked him to pay Rs.10,000.00 as illegal gratification for submitting the matter to the Executive Engineer for sanction and issue of work order. Since PW1 - Syed Jamil did not want to pay bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Latur. His statement-cum-complaint (Exh.54) dtd. 11/7/2003 was recorded there. PW4 - Pandit Kendre, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Latur, decided to lay a trap. He secured presence of two Government officials to act as panch witnesses. He gave necessary instructions to them and told PW1 - Syed Jamil not to pay bribe money unless demanded. Pre-trap panchanama was drawn on 12/7/2003. As planned, PW1 - Syed Jamil accompanied by PW3 - Bharat Bastewad (shadow witness) went to the house of the original appellant and on his demand, an amount of Rs.10,000.00 was paid. Soon after the raid was effected, a sum of Rs.10,000.00 came to be seized from the deceased appellant. Post-trap panchanama was drawn. PW4 - Pandit Kendre, lodged the First Information Report (FIR). Sanction for prosecution was obtained. The charge-sheet, therefore, came to be laid.

4. The Special Judge framed the charge (Exh.46). The deceased appellant pleaded not guilty. To establish the charge, prosecution examined five witnesses and produced in evidence certain documents. The Special Judge, on appreciation of the evidence in the case, passed the impugned judgment and order.

5. Heard. The learned Advocate for the legal representatives of the deceased appellant would submit that PW1 - Syed Jamil did not utter a single word in his evidence attributing deceased appellant to have made any demand of bribe and accepted the same. According to the learned Advocate, in the given circumstances, the Special Judge ought not to have convicted the deceased appellant. He took this Court through the relevant evidence in the case to ultimately urge for allowing the appeal.

6. The learned APP would, on the other hand, submit that PW3 - Bharat Bastewad, shadow witness was of the rank of Deputy Collector. He had accompanied PW1 to the house of the deceased appellant. According to her, the evidence of PW3 undoubtedly indicate the deceased appellant to have had made a demand of Rs.10,000.00 and then accepted the same. The post-trap panchanama would indicate the deceased appellant to have had received the amount from PW1, directly. According to her, PW3 was an independent witnes