Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to establish these elements leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal, the appellant (accused) has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2006 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, designated under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (learned Judge of the trial court), Wardha in Special Case (ACB) No.5/1997. By the said judgment, the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act of 1988) and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and he has also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution’s case as emerges from the evidences recorded before the trial Court are as under :

(i) The accused is serving as a District Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha. He was the sanctioning authority of grant-in-aid to the Hutatma Smarak Backward Classes Boys Hostel, Ashti. The State Government used to provide grant-in-aid at the rate of Rs.250/-per student to the said hostel through the District Social Welfare Officer. There were 180 students staying in the hostel and the hostel was getting messing grant of Rs.4.50 Lacks through the District Social Welfare Officer. On 25.08.1995, proposal for release of messing grant amount to Rs.4.50 Lacks was submitted by authorities of the said hostel to the office of the accused. On 30.10.1995, complainant Babarao Fuse, who was serving as a Superintendent of the said hostel contacted the accused and enquired about the grants whether sanctioned or not. As per the allegations of the complainant, the accused told that unless amount of Rs.10,000/- is paid to him, the grants would not be sanctioned. Upon communicating with the accused, accused accepted to receive the amount in installments and asked the complainant Babarao Fuse to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/-when 50% grant would be sanctioned and to pay balance amount of Rs.6,000/- when remaining 50% of the grant would be sanctioned in the month of March-April. The complainant was called by the accused after seven to eight days. Thereafter, the complainant met the accused on 08.11.1995 and he was informed that 50% grant was sanctioned and the proposal along with the bill is sent to Cash and Finance Officer for preparing cheque amount of Rs.2.25 Lacks. The accused informed the complainant that the cheque will come to him by Friday and complainant should approach him on Friday at about 03.00 to 04.00 pm. with an amount of Rs.4,000/-. As the complainant was not willing to pay the amount to the accused, he approached the Office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau,(ACB) Nagpur and lodged report on 09.11.1995.

(ii) After receipt of report, office of the ACB called him on the next day and also called two panchas, the complainant narrated the incident, which was verified by panchas from the complaint. After following due procedure, it was decided to conduct a raid. The complainant produced tainted amount 40 currency notes of Rs.100/-denomination and the numbers of the currencies were noted. The demonstration as to phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution was shown, the said solution was applied on the tainted amount and kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant. The instructions were given to the panch No.1 Ashok Bisen to stay along with the complainant and panch No.2 was asked to remain along with raiding party members. The complainant was further instructed to hand over the amount only on demand, accordingly Pre-trap panchnama was drawn.

(iii) After the Pre-trap panchnama, the complainant along with panchas and raiding party