IMPORTANT POINT
[The necessity of proving the demand for bribe as a fundamental requirement for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the importance of independent witness testimony in establishing such demand.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This is an appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'the Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court dtd. 5/9/2009 convicting the appellant for the offence under Ss. 7 and 13 (i) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as "the P.C.Act"), whereby the appellant has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.10,000.00 in default, S.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the P.C. Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default to suffer S.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

2. The incident is dtd. 18/1/2001. It is alleged that the complainant Sudhakar Ghule (PW-1 page 24) had purchased a plot in 1996 from one Suresh Rothe in Shaktimata Nagar, Nagpur, upon which he had constructed a house in the year 1998 and was residing there. The demand for tax was received in the name of the old owner. On 29/1/1997, the complainant had deposited the necessary fees for mutation of his name and in pursuance thereto had visited the office of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, a number of times. On 15/1/2001, the Corporation Surveyor had visited the house of the complainant for reassessment of taxes. The appellant/accused was a Tax Assessment Inspector in the Corporation and was one of the persons who had visited the house of the complainant on 16/1/2001, on which date the documents in respect of property, being demanded, were shown to him, whereupon a form was given by him to be filled up by the complainant and returned back to him. The said form was in the name of the previous owner and it was informed by the accused to the complainant that the form could not be changed and mutation could not be effected unless something is paid to him. The accused further informed the complainant that he would visit him the next day to collect the form (Exh.11). On 17/1/2001, when the accused came, the form (Exh.11) was handed over by the complainant to him, whereupon the accused is claimed to have made a demand of Rs.2,000.00 for the mutation. This was not agreeable to the complainant, whereupon the accused is claimed to have told him that he would do the work for Rs.1500.00.

3. The complainant being unagreeable to the same, went to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred as 'ACB') on 17/1/2001 and lodged a complaint (Exh.12 pg.31). The complainant was called to the office of the ACB on the next day i.e. 18/1/2001, wherein two persons, one of them being PW-2 Panch Dnyaneshwar Lohi (Exh.17, pg.52) another panch and other officers were present and the complaint made by the complainant being shown to them, these persons including PW-2 had enquired about the complaint with the complainant to the veracity of which he asserted. It is claimed by the complainant that on 18/1/2001 he was given a demonstration of the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution in the office of the ACB. The complainant had taken Rs.1,500.00 with him in the denomination of Rs.500.00x2 and Rs.100.00x5 and the phenolphthalein powder was applied to these currency notes, which were kept in his shirt pocket with the instructions not to touch till demanded. The complainant was informed that one person would be with him when the accused would visit him. The complainant was also asked to remove his handkerchief from his left hand pocket, wipe off his face and keep it on his shoulder as a signal of money having passed on, whereupon the raid would be conducted.

4. Accordingly, the raiding party along with two panchas went to the house of the complainant and upon enquiry, the wife of the complainant informed that the accused had already come to his place and had told that he would come back within 15 minutes, whereupon the complainant with PW-2 Dnyaneshwar Lohi, the Panch sat in the outer room and the r