The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the need for corroborative evidence to prove demand of bribe.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - These two appeals are by two accused persons who stood trial in Special Case No.2 of 2004 initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI for short. The appellant No.1 stand convicted and sentenced for committing offence found to be punishable under Section 7 and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption act and the appellant No.2 stand convicted and sentenced for committing offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code with Sections 7 and 13(2) with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption act, hereinafter described as the said act.

2. Charges were framed against appellant No.1 Sujit Kumar Pandey commission of offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC, secondly, Section 7 of the said act. Thirdly, Section 13(1)(d) of the said act and fourthly, under Section 12 of the said act. The appellant in CRa 12 of 2015 was charged under two heads, viz., Section 7 of the said act and Section 120B of the IPC. The court below found that the charge against the appellant was established and on such basis they were found guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the said act. The appellant in CRa 14 of 2015 was also found convicted for committing offence under Section 120B of the IPC along with the penal provisions under the Prevention of Corruption act.

3. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the appellant in CRa 12 of 2015 and CRa 14 of 2015. I have also heard the learned prosecutor on behalf of the CBI.

4. Mr. Sudipto Maitra, learned advocate for the appellant Sujit Kumar Pandey in CRa 12 of 2015 at the outset submits that the genesis of the prosecution case is shrouded with cloud. appellant Sujit Kumar Pandey is an Inspector of Railway Protection Force (RPF). He was posted at Naihati RPF post during December, 2013. as Inspector of RPF, he conducted raid in connection with the cases of theft of railway properties. The defacto complainant along with his entire family members were engaged in dealing with unlawfully obtained the railway properties. The appellant lodged a complaint against the complainant, PW1 Md. Wakil answari. The said case under Section 3(a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) act was pending in the court of the magistrate at Barrackpore. The defacto complainant was arrested by the appellant No.1. The appellant No.1 also conducted raid in the godown of the mother of the complainant. His mother was also arrested in connection with another case under Section 3(a) of the RP(UP) act. It is further argued by Mr. Maitra that the complainant, PW1 was granted bail in connection with Criminal Complaint No.547 of 2003 on 17th November, 2003 by the learned Magistrate, Barrackpore on condition to meet the investigating officer once in every week. Therefore, the PW1 was required to report the appellant one day in a week. The evidence on record further suggests that the appellant virtually caused immense damage to the illegal business of scrap iron materials of the complainant. Therefore, in order to take revenge the complainant lodged a complaint against the appellant on 20th January, 2004 with the CBI. It is further argued by Mr. Maitra that when the relation between the defacto complainant and the appellant is such that false implication of the appellant may not be ruled out, it is the duty of the court to consider the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution with due care and circumspection. Mr. Maitra submits that that prosecution came up with the story against the appellant that Inspector Sujit Kr. Pandey demanded a sum of Rs.5000/- as bribe from PW1. He also insisted him to pay the said money to another appellant, named, constable Sunil Kumar Shaw and only after payment of such amount, Inspector Sujit Kumar Pandey would record his presence at RPF post as a condition for bail. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that illegal demand of money and acceptanc