JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 11.12.2012 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) & First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 01/2007, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 5000/- & R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively with further default stipulations.

2. As per version of the prosecution, appellant namely Ram Prasad Nayak was posted as Supervisor in the office of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur and one R.P. Thakur was posted as Additional Superintending Engineer in the said office. Complainant namely Mansukhlal Ambabhai Thumar was contractor and was alloted work of 15 units staff quarter at Gurur. Work was completed and partial payment was also done to the tune of Rs. 43 lakh. Bill of Rs. 16 lakh was remained to be paid, but the same was not sanctioned and it is alleged that the appellant and one R.P. Thakur demanded Rs. 60,000/- as illegal gratification for sanctioning rest of the bill amount. The matter was reported by the complainant with Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur. After complying with all the legal formalities, one trap party was arranged. Currency note was recovered from possession of the appellant. Though, the complaint was made against Additional Superintending Engineer- R.P. Thakur by the complainant, but sanction to prosecute under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 was not granted against the said Additional Superintending Engineer. Sanction was granted against the present appellant that is why the present appellant was prosecuted. After completion of trial, the trial court convicted the appellant as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:-

(i) The appellant was posted as Supervisor and his duty was to supervise the work and once the work is completed, he was not authorized for any further act.

(ii) Passing of bills was in domain of the Additional Superintending Engineer, therefore, the appellant had no role for passing the bills and demand can not be made by him.

(iii) From evidence of the complainant namely Mansukhlal Ambabhai Thumar (PW-2), it is clear that no demand was made by the present appellant, but demand was made by Additional Superintending Engineer- R.P. Thakur, therefore, demand on the part of the present appellant is not established from the total evidence adduced by the prosecution.

(iv) From evidence of Mansukhlal Ambabhai Thumar (PW-2) and Jayanti Bhai (PW-14), it is clear that the amount was handed over to Additional Superintending Engineer- R.P. Thakur, therefore, it is not a case where the appellant has accepted any amount.

(v) Though, it has come on record that R.P. Thakur gave the money to the appellant for some period, but that is not the acceptance of amount as illegal gratification because amount was to be returned by the appellant to the said Additional Superintending Engineer after custody of some time, therefore, demand and acceptance on the part of the appellant is not established. When demand and acceptance is not established against the present appellant, Section 20 of the Act, 1988 has no application in the present case.

(vi) The trial court has overlooked the material aspect of the case, therefore, finding arrived at by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the matter of Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi, (2016) 3 SCC 108 , C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.I., (2009) 3 SCC 779 , Razik Ram Vs. Jaswant Singh, (1975) 4 SCC 761 , Bal Krishan Sayal Vs. State of Punjab, (1987) AIR SC 689 & Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujrat, (2002) 5 SCC 86 .

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel sub