IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential, but inferential deductions can be made in the absence of direct evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

The Appeal :-

1. The appeal has been preferred against a Judgment dated 07.10.2015 and Order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Third Court, and Judge Third Special Court, Bankura in connection with Special Court Case No. 2 of 2000, arising out of Chhatna Police Station Case No. 16/97 dated 30.04.97 and under Sections 463/464/465/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for another two months and also convicting the appellant under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for another three months.

The Prosecution:-

2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that:-

“On 30.04.97 at 15.29 hours in front of Chhatna P.S. Chhatna, Bankura inside Dulal Mistanna Bhandar, Chhatna at a distance of about 10 meters from Chhatna P.S., Sri Dilip Kumar Roy, B.L. & L.R.O., Chhatna while keeping after accepting Rs. 15,000/- in his brief case, during drinking Thums Up at Dulal Mistanna Bhandar in front of Chhatna P.S. as gratification from de facto complainant Anupam Banerjee other than legal remuneration, as a motive of doing official act and also showing favour to de facto complainant Anupam Banerjee in exercise of his official function in the matter of record correction in L.A. case No. 35/88-89 Vis-à-vis payment of compensation upon acquisition of land in Dag no. 470 under Mouza Sonepur under P.S. Chhatna by WBSEB (having reference to Hon’ble High Court C.R. No. 2955(W)/1973 and Writ Petition No. 1820/(W)/1992 was caught red handed by some officials in plain cloth, namely, Haripada Roy, SDO(S), Bankura, Sri Pratap Chandra Das, Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Unit, Bankura, S.I. Dilip Kumar Chanda of Vigilance Department, Bankura, H.G. Parasuream Singh and S.I. Mr. Swapan Das of Chhatna P.S. The accused accepted amount of Rs. 15,000/- was recovered from the possession of Sri Dilip Roy on the spot from a fiber sky colour attachi case including some papers and documents and cash amount of Rs. 8,691.30/-. Vigilance Inspector also seized one H.M.T. wrist watch, one golden ring with Pokraj stone, identity card of Dilip Kumar Roy, some official rubber stamp and order sheet. It is stated that as per complaint of de facto complainant, D.M./D.V.O., Bankura made the necessary arrangement for apprehending Dilip Roy. It is also stated that Rs. 15,000/- consisted of 30 nos. 500 Rupee currency notes each bearing the initial signature of D.M., Bankura Smt. R. Tempo, I.A.S.”

3. On completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 463/464/465/467/468/474/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act vide Charge Sheet No. 36/97 dated 18.09.97 against the appellant. Subsequent to submission of the charge sheet the case has been registered as Special Court Case No. 2 of 2000.

4. Charge was framed under Sections 463/464/465/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to which the appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many nineteen prosecution witnesses. The defence did not adduce any witness.

6. On completion of trial, the Appellant was sentenced as above.

The Evidence:-

7. The relevant witnesses are discussed here:-

i) Prosecution witness no. 1 is brother of the owner of the Sweet Shop at the alleged place of occurrence. This witness was taken from the shop to the Police Station and he signed as a seizure witness. The attaché was opened by the Vigilance Officer, in his presence and 30 currency notes o