In a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of witnesses who claim to have seen the transaction from outside the appellant's chamber was unreliable, as the chamber was fitted with an automatic door closure and it was difficult to see inside from outside. The evidence of other witnesses was contradictory and did not support the prosecution's case.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, 24 Parganas, 1st Special Court, alipore in Special Court Case No. 8 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the aforesaid appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i. d. to suffer R. I. for 2 months more for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was also sentenced to undergo r. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- i. d. R. I. for 3 months more for offences under Section 13 (2) of the PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 directing that and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE short fact leading to the filing of the prosecution against the present appellant are as under : p. W. 1, Sri Shibnath Pramanik on 29. 4. 1991 lodged one information with the Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. 7s. P. E. /a. C. B. , calcutta allegingthat he was an authorized representative of M/s. Tara Sankar Construction co. and the said firm was awarded a contract for Modification and Enlargement of the Children Park by International Airport Authority of India under Agreement no. 10/e. E-AMD/89-90. The aforesaid work was completed within the extended date and on completion the appellant who was the Assistant Engineer and one Goutam Das (Junior Engineer) were requested to arrange for making payment of the final bill.

( 3 ) IT was further alleged that as per the practice, the bill was to be prepared by said Gautam Das, who was the Junior Engineer and approved by the appellant, who was the Assistant Engineer. But, they, however kept the bill pending In March, 1991, P. W. 1 on behalf of the firm requested the appellant and said Gautam Das for preparation and for passing their Bill without any further delay. On 18. 04. 1991, P. W. 1 had been to the Office of the appellant and requested him to pass final bill when the appellant called said Gautam Das and after conversation with said Gautam Das, the appellant informed P. W. 1 that unless Rs. 6,000/- was paid none of the bills would be prepared or passed.

( 4 ) AGAIN, on 23. 04. 1991, P. W. 1 went to the Office of the appellant when appellant threatened him that if the amount was not paid, he could cause immense harassment and delay the process of the preparation and payment of the bill and later they agreed to accept Rs. 3,000/- as the first instalment which was agreed to be paid in the chamber of the appellant on 30 04. 1991. The Complainant then informed the matter to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch Calcutta and the case was accordingly registered on 29. 04. 1991 as R. C. Case No. 27 of 1991 under Section 7 of the PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.

( 5 ) ON 30. 04. 1991, it was decided by the C. B. I. Authority that a trap was to be laid whereby it was arranged that the P. W. 1 would as per the proposal of the appellant make the payment in the chamber of the appellant and the Investigating Team along with the witnesses would thereafter enter into the chamber of the appellant to apprehend him. Accordingly, currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder in presence of two witnesses. A pre-trap memorandum recording the process and arrangement was prepared.

( 6 ) THEN as per the arrangement, the team reaching the situs, instructed the complainant to enter into the chamber of the appellant at the set time and the witnesses also took up their position. The flash door was arranged to be kept open to be seen. Then complainant in the presence of one Pijush Kanti ghata, Goutam Das made payment to the appellant which in turn was kept by him inside the right side pocket of his trouser. When the witnesses and the officers witnessed that the money had been handed over and received through the opening of the door, then they a