The main legal point established in the judgment is that the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, as required by the Prevention of Corruption Act, must be proved by consistent, trustworthy, and reliable evidence for conviction to follow.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. on this criminal appeal.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.03.2012 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. 1st, Patna in Special Case No.22 of 2011 [Special Case No.22/94 (old)], arising out of R.C. Case No.38A/1994, whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused Prakash Prasad Sinha for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and slapped him with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and slapped him with a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that R.C. Case No.38A/1994 was instituted on the basis of a written complaint filed by Shri Anil Kumar, son of Shri Ram Pravesh Prasad, Senior Development Manager, Nidhi Sri Finance and Investment (India) Ltd., Patna addressed to the S.P., C.B.I., Patna with the case in succinct that the complainant happens to be Senior Development Manager, of Nidhi Sri Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’), Patna. One Yamaha motorcycle, bearing registration no.BR 1D-8056, was provided to him by the Company. The said vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch-I, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. The said vehicle met with an accident for which he lodged a claim with the New India Assurance Company Limited. The surveyor of the Company also submitted his report for settlement of the claim but his claim for the loss worth of Rs.2000/- was not paid by the Company for the last six months. When he met Prakash Prasad Sinha, claim in-charge of the said Company on 24.10.1994 he demanded graft of Rs.400/- in lieu of payment of claim amount to him. He also instructed to submit receipt [F. No. Spl.9 (H)] after taking the signature of the authorized Director of the Company on revenue stamp. He also extended threatening to the effect that claim would not be passed/made unto the payment of the aforesaid graft. He does not want to give any graft to Prakash Prasad Sinha for the said work, hence necessary action as per law be taken against him.

4. On receiving the aforesaid complaint petition, S.P., C.B.I. got the veracity of the allegation verified by its officer, namely, Shri Ashish Kumar, Inspector, C.B.I., Patna and after verification F.I.R. was lodged against the aforesaid accused. The charge of the case was given to Shri Nagendra Prasad, Inspector of Police, C.B.I., SPE, Patna, for laying down a trap and investigation. On 27.10.1994, a trap team was constituted comprising eight personnel of the C.B.I. and two independent witnesses, namely, Shri K.M. Dubey and Shri Anand Prakash Poddar, both personnel from the Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna. Out of them Shri K.M. Dubey was directed to act as shadow witness including the complainant and demonstration formalities was carried out in the office and complainant was asked to produce a sum of Rs.400 whereupon he produced the same consisting of one currency note of Rs.100 denomination, five currency notes of Rs.50 denomination and five currency notes of Rs.10 denomination. The description and number of the said currency notes was noted down in the preliminary memorandum. Said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and was given to the complainant with a direction to hand it over to the accused only on demand and a preliminary memo was prepared. Thereafter, on 27.10.1994 at 11:15 AM the trap team and the complainant arrived at the Branch Office of the N