The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.)

1. By this appeal the appellant – accused challenges the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai on 31.03.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C.Act”).

2. The learned Judge, by the impugned judgment, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act inter alia directing him to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) of the P.C. Act, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.

3. The State Government has also preferred an appeal for enhancement of sentence on the ground of its inadequacy in view of Section 377(1) of the Cr.P.C. Obviously, the fate of an appeal by the State would depend upon outcome of the appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. In case, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed then only this Court would be required to consider whether the sentence awarded by the trial Court was inadequate.

4. Turning to the facts of the present case, which can be encapsulated as follows.

5. The appellant was working as an Assistant Police Inspector (API) in the month of April, 2014 with Crime Branch, Mumbai. Indisputably, he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act. PW1 complainant – Rizwankhan Isar Ahmed was in the custody of the appellant in connection with C.R. No.31 of 2014. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded and attempted to obtain Rs.2 lac as a gratification other than legal remuneration for himself and after discussion agreed to accept Rs.1 lac being the first installment. He accepted Rs.1 lac from one Abu Barkatali in the presence of complainant as a gratification and also agreed to accept remaining amount of Rs.1 lac through PW-8 Ranjitsingh after release of the complainant. The bribe alleged to have been accepted by the appellant to favour the complainant – Rizwankhan by helping him in the said crime, including return of his trucks, which were involved in transporting illicit Gutkha (Tobacco) by evading the octroi duty.

6. It is alleged that on 22.04.2014, after the release of the complainant – Rizwankhan on bail in the said crime, on 23.04.2014 to 25.04.2014 the appellant contacted the witness PW-8 Ranjitsingh on phone as per the previous talk and thereafter demanded and attempted to obtain balance amount of gratification to the tune of Rs.1 lac.

7. On 26.04.2014, during the meeting with the complainant - Rizwankhan and the witness PW-8 Ranjitsingh, the appellant attempted to obtain from PW-8 Ranjitsingh an amount of Rs.1 lac in a Scorpio Jeep while proceeding to Konark Bunder, Mumbai. As such, the public servant had accepted the gratification other than legal remuneration to favour the complainant by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position as a public servant.

8. Since the complainant – Rizwankhan was not ready to give bribe to the appellant, he lodged a complaint (Exh.17) on 25.04.2014 with Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Mumbai. The Investigating Officer decided to verify the complaint in the presence of panchas. Accordingly, two persons were summoned at the ACB Office. Introductory speeches on DVR / SD cards came to be recorded. The complainant - Rizwankhan, thereafter, went to meet the appellant at his office. During conversation between the complainant, appellant and PW-8 Ranjitsingh, it transpired that the appellant had, in fact, made a demand of bribe to the complainant. A pre-trap panchanama was laid and the complainant - Rizwankhan was directed to bring currency notes of Rs.1 lac. The currency notes were sprinkled with anthracene powder.

9. On 26.04.2014 the complainan