IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is insufficient in absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification.

JUDGMENT

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.—The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 03.03.2003 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Special Court, Burdwan in Special Case No. 8 of 1998 whereby the appellant was held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three (3) moths.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated one Manowar @ Monawar Hossain lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, A.C.B./S.P.E. Division, Calcutta on 25.09.1995 alleging, inter alia, that he had a small shop of scrap materials at Burdwan. On 08.08.1995 in the morning by a hired truck bearing No.WML-956 he sent certain scrap materials. As it approached near the railway over-bridge at Burdwan on the way to Kolkata on the Katwa Burdwan Road the R.P.F. Inspector, the appellant herein intercepted the said truck, assaulted its driver and took the said truck near the barrack by the side of Burdwan Raiway Station. Thereafter he sent the said truck being loaded with scrap materials along with its driver and khalasi to Court and on 12.09.1995, he obtained an order from the Burdwan Court for release of the seized scrap materials. Subsequently, with the said order, he met the appellant and requested him to release the seized scrap materials. The appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- being a condition to release the same. The complainant Manowar @ Monawar Hossain requested the appellant not to demand such an amount from him as he was a small businessman but the appellant refused and so Sk. Manowar @ Monawar Hossain decided to report it to the C.B.I. and prayed for some time in order to provide the amount to the appellant till 23.09.1995. On that date he again met the appellant and wanted to know the place where the appellant would accept the amount to which the appellant asked him to hand over the amount to him on 26.09.1995 at 12.00 noon at his office at platform no. 1 of the said station.

3. It was alleged on the basis of the said complaint the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., A.C.B./S.P.E. Division, Calcutta ordered on the same day for registering a R.C. and also for laying a trap. In the said order he endorsed Sri R.N. Adak, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., A.C.B/S.P.E. Division, Calcutta for investigation. A regular case No. R.C. 38/95 was registered on 25.09.1995 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigation was initiated. About 15/20 R.P.F. constables started scuffling with the trap laying team and the accused person escaped from the lawful custody with the assistance of the R.P.F. constables under his control.

4. On the basis of the complaint of Manowar @ Monawar Hossain lodged in Burdwan G.R.P.S. and on the basis of the complaint of the C.B.I., Burdwan G.R.P.S. Case No. 62/95 dated 26.09.1995 was registered.

5. Sanction for prosecution was obtained against the appellant under Section 9(1)(c) of the said Act of 1988. The appellant was a public servant and working for gain as a R.P.F. Inspector.

6. The Charge-Sheet was filed against the appellant for the alleged commission of offences under Section 7 of the said Act of 1988 and punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act of 1988.

7. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the said Act of 1998 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Special Court, Burdwan and the same was read over and explained to the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution agency in order to prove and establish its case, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

9. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that:—

(i) The Learned