IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand for bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned Judge, Special Court, Wardha (learned Judge of the trial court) rendered judgment dated 30.9.2005 in Special Case No.1/2001 whereby the appellant (the accused) is convicted and, therefore, the said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

2. By the judgment impugned in the appeal, for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act), the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

For offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the said Act, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Learned Judge of the trial court directed that all sentences shall run concurrently.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused expired and, therefore, his legal heir, i.e. wife, was brought on record to prosecute the appeal further.

FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE

4. The accused was serving as Executive Engineer with the Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran (MJP) at Wardha in the month of March 2000. The MJP is constituted under the Maharashtra Jivan Authority Act. The MJP runs Scheme for Supply of Water to villages to Girad and Peth in Wardha district under the name as “Augmentation to Girad and Peth villages Combined Water Scheme”. The tender process was implemented and in the said tender process, a tender was allotted to M/s.Vatcons, a partnership firm doing work as Civil Contractor registered with the MJP. The estimated cost of the work was Rs.33,94,644/- and period allotted for completion of the work was two years from issuance of work order. The work of Water Supply Scheme was to be commenced from 27.8.1997 and was to be completed on or before 27.8.1999. Shrikant Tankhiwale (the complainant), is one of partners of the said firm and Shri Vaidya was another partner. The contractor used to submit bills for the work done stage wise and the accused was looking after process of the work as Executive Engineer. As per allegations of the complainant, the accused was delaying payment of bills of M/s.Vatcons on a pretext of getting sanction from higher authorities. Though the firm completed the work pursuant to the tender and also done extra work as directed by the accused, it is alleged that despite the work completed by the firm on 25.8.1999, the accused informed the Superintendent Engineer that the firm has not completed the work within prescribed time limit i.e. 27.8.1999 and proposed to impose fine Rs.1000/- per day w.e.f.1.8.1999. The Superintending Engineer approved the proposal of imposing fine Rs.1000/- per day from 1.8.1999. In fact, the contractor had actually done the work costing of Rs.38,31,460.68 which was much more than the tender value of Rs.33,49,644/-. The complainant applied for review of the decision and for seeking favourable orders, he met the accused. It is alleged that for reducing the fine amount, the accused demanded amount Rs.25000/- on 7.2.2000. The accused further asked the complainant to supply G.I.Pipe of 100 mm diameter, 150 in length, which was not covered by the agreement. As the complainant was unable to pay such huge amount, he returned to the home. Again, on 13.3.2000, he met the accused with a request to reduce the fine amount. On that day also, the accused demanded the amount. On 16.3.2000, the complainant obtained a proposal for reducing the fine from the office of the Section Engineer, Hinganghat and handed over the same to the Inward Clerk in the office of the accused at Wardha. In the evening, he met the accused at his Chamber. At the relevant time, the accused informed the complainant that he will recommend for imposing nominal fine and again demanded Rs.25,000/-. On showing inability by the complainant to pay such amount, the accused demanded Rs.10000/- by afternoon of 18.3.2000 and balance amount R