The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to substantiate a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money without proven demand does not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09-12-2004 passed by the learned Special Judge & 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Case No.01/2004, whereby the learned Court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

1.1 Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.10.1986 the appellant was working as Bill Assistant in the Divisional workshop of M.P.S.R.T.C. at Raipur. At that time, the appellant being a public servant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- from the complainant Ashok Kumar Verma with regard to clear the bill of arrears of the appellant during his service period between the year 1981 to 1985. For which, the complainant made a complaint before the Lokayukt. Thereafter, a trap team was constituted and Phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled over two currency notes of Rs.50/- each and the same were kept in the pocket of the complainant and the complainant was directed to give those currency notes to the appellant and also instructed to give sign thereafter. The complainant handed over those notes to the appellant and made a sign on which the members of the trap party immediately apprehended. On 25/10/1996, the trap team along with the witnesses reached the place Puranibasti, Raipur and directed the complaint to meet with the appellant. Then, the appellant and complainant started going towards the road near Awadhiyapara Chowk and there, the complainant gave money to the appellant and gave signal. Thereafter, the trap team reached the spot and caught red handed the appellant. The currency notes were recovered from the hand of the appellant and the notes were washed in the sodium carbonate solution they turned pink. The test was positive. Thereafter the prosecution after completion of investigation laid the charge sheet before the special court. the appellant abjured his guilt and he was prosecuted for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the charges. The accused person abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication.

3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

4. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that as per the evidence of PW-2, Ashok Kumar Verma, when he requested the arrears amount from the appellant, who was then Bill Assistant, the appellant clearly stated that the arrears would be released only after receiving approval from the higher authority. It is an admitted fact that at the time of this communication, the appellant was not in a position to prepare or disburse the arrears, as the complainant made the request on 24.10.1986, whereas the order for preparation and approval of the arrears was received from the higher authority only on 19.11.1986, demonstrating that the appellant was not competent to release