IMPORTANT POINT
The essential requirement of proving a demand for illegal gratification by a public servant is critical for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and private individuals cannot be charged under provisions meant for public servants.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Two separate Appeals are filed by the two appellants on being convicted in Special Case No.20/2000 by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short 'the P.C Act') on 15/12/2008.

The appellant in Appeal No.91/2009, being a public servant stand convicted for committing an offence punishable u/s.7 of the P.C. Act, and is sentenced to suffer RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.6, 000.00. Accused nos.1 and 2 are convicted for committing an offence punishable u/s.13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short 'P.C.Act') and also under Sec. 109 of IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer RI for one year. Accused no.1 is imposed with a fine of Rs.6, 000.00, whereas accused no.2 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3, 000.00. Accused no.2 stand convicted for the offence punishable u/s.7 r/w Sec. 12 of P.C. Act and is sentenced to suffer RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3, 000.00 in default to suffer RI for 15 days.

Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

It is this judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence which is assailed by the two appellants in the Appeals presented before this Court.

2. Heard Advocate Raviraj Parmane for the appellant/ accused no.1 (Appeal No.91/2009) and Advocate Satyavrat Joshi for accused no.2 (Appeal No.94/2009). I have also heard the learned APP Mr.Agarkar for the State and also perused the Record and Proceedings placed before me.

3. Accused no.1, working as Junior Engineer in Building Department of 'L' Ward, Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika, the public servant within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was charged for attempting to obtain Rs.6, 000.00 on or about 24/6/1999 from the complainant Sanjay Kanade, as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing favour to the complainant by not demolishing the unauthorised structure of his mezzanine floor of the printing press situated at Shop No.3, Kurla, Mumbai. He was charged for committing an offence punishable u/s.7 of the P.C. Act for attempting to obtain illegal gratification on 3/5/1999 and 4/5/1999.

Accused no.2 came to be charged under Sectoin 7 and 12 of the P.C. Act for accepting the amount on behalf of the accused no.1, and for knowingly and willfully aiding and abetting the offence.

4. In order to establish the charge framed, to which they pleaded not guilty, the prosecution examined four witnesses. PW 1, is the complainant who was engaged in printing press business in the premises situated at Halav Pool Municipal Plot, shop no.3, Kurla (West), Mumbai. The premises admeasuring 13 x 7 ft, was standing in the name of his mother and the shop was constructed by him where the printing press business was being conducted by obtaining necessary licence. In the said premises, a mezzanine floor was constructed without requisite permission of the Corporation and the justification is offered by the complainant, that since the shop owners of both the sides increased the height of the construction by 4 ft, the rain water started entering into his shop premises and therefore, he also increased the height by about 4 ft.

5. As per the case of the complainant, on 26th of one month in the year 1999, the Officers of the Corporation visited his shop for pulling down the construction, and on being asked by his brother to come on the spot, he found a group of 15 - 20 persons who informed him that they had come from 'L' Ward. When he questioned them about the activity, since no show cause notice was issued to him, he was told to meet their Engineer Mr.Nilakhe, accused no.1, who was also present amongst the other persons.

When he met the accused no.1 and asked him to stop the demolition, he was informed that many complaints were received by him. However, an offer was given by Mr.Nilakhe to pay Rs.6, 000.00 to the action. However, at that time, some portion of his construction was already pulled dow