Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant (accused) has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.5.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Chandrapur (learned Judge of the trial court) in Special (ACB) Case No.10/2007 whereby the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The accused is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

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

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case run as under:

Complainant Jitendra Gadiwan, is a businessman and running a shop under name and style as “Rolling Shutters and Engineering Workshop at Bramhapuri”. He used to obtain welding and fabrication works from the Government, Semi-Government, and so also privately. Two months before 17.7.2006, he filled up a tender in the office of the Bramhapuri Municipal Council for manufacturing gate of compound wall of the Municipal Council. Accordingly, he completed the work as per the tender on 7.7.2006 and the gate was installed. The accused, who was Junior Engineer at the relevant time, inspected the work and approved it and therefore, the complainant submitted his bill of Rs.14,900/-. As per allegation, the complainant was called by the accused saying that he helped him during the tender process, otherwise he would not have got the said tender and demanded Rs.2500/- for taking entry of the bill of the complainant in M.B.Register. It is alleged that the accused told him that if he pays the amount, he would obtain signature of the Chief Officer and would forward the bill to the Accounts Office.

3. On 17.7.2006, the complainant again visited the office of the accused and requested him to send the bill, but the accused told him that unless and and until he pays the amount, he would not process the bill. As the complainant was not desiring to pay the amount, he approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Chandrapur (bureau) and lodged a report on 17.6.2006.

4. After receipt of the report, the office of the bureau called panchas to remain present in the office of the bureau on 20.7.2006. Accordingly, panchas were present as well as the complainant. The complainant narrated the incident which was verified by panchas from the complaint. After following a due procedure, it was decided to lay a trap. The complainant produced four currencies of Rs.500/- denomination. A demonstration as to phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was shown to the complainant and panchas. The instructions were given to panchas as well as the complainant. The solution was applied on currency notes and the amount was handed over to the complainant to keep it in his shirt pocket. Accordingly, a pre-trap panchanama was drawn.

5. The squad for the trap along with panchas and the complainant proceeded to Bramhapuri. The complainant and pancha namely Meshram proceeded towards the office of the accused and another pancha Tilakchand Khandekar was along with other raiding party members. In the office of the accused, the complainant communicated with the accused whether his bill was sent to th