Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient without demonstrating demand and acceptance.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since common facts and issues are involved in these two appeals and arise out of common judgment, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

2. The challenge in these appeals are judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No.113/2016, whereby the appellant Ganga Prasad Kaushal (Cr.A. No. 1951/2017) has been convicted for the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the PC Act) and sentenced to RI for four years with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation whereas, the appellant Poonam Sharma (Cr.A. No. 1882/2017) has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and sentenced to RI for three years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and RI for four years and fine of Rs. 2000/- respectively with default stipulations.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Poonam Sharma was Patwari at PH No.7, Village Oatgan, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur, whereas, the appellant Ganga Prasad was Assistant of the said Patwari Poonam Sharma. The complainant Ishwar Paul, PW-8, purchased a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 296/3, Area 0.202 Hect. situated at village Oatgan, PH No. 7, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur from Shivaji and Jethiya through a registered sale deed dated 08.06.2015. After its purchase, he approached the appellant Poonam Sharma for its Rin-Pustika in his favour and submitted his deed of title before her however, she demanded Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant. Since the complainant was not willing to give her illegal gratification, he made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (in short, ACB), Raipur on 29.10.2015 vide Ex. P/27, in which he alleged that the appellant Poonam Sharma is demanding Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification in lieu of preparing Rin-Pustika of his land and he does not want to give her the said money.

4. The officers of ACB Raipur had given him a digital voice recorder for verification of complaint of complainant and asked him to get the conversation recorded in the said digital voice recorder about demand of illegal gratification by the appellant Poonam Sharma. On 02.11.2015, when the complainant again went to the office of appellant Poonam Sharma and asked for Rin-Pustika, then she again demanded Rs. 2000/- which was recorded by him in digital voice recorder and gave it to ACB office on 28.11.2015. Thereafter, on 28.11.2015, the officers of ACB wrote a letter to the Collector, Raipur, who deputed two officers of Irrigation and Forest Department of the State to be the member of trap party and to conduct the trap proceeding. The complainant was asked to come again on 30.11.2015 along with the amount of Rs. 2000/- as demanded by the appellant Poonam Sharma and the recorded voice recorder. On 30.11.2015 a trap team was constituted. The complainant again made a written complaint on 30.11.2015 vide Ex. P/7 to the Superintendent of Police, ACB Raipur, and after its satisfaction the Panch witnesses have endorsed their note in the said complaint. Dehati Nalisi Ex. P/4 was recorded for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. The transcript Ex. P/8 was prepared from the voice recorder. The