An offer of a bribe amounts to instigation of an offence within the meaning of section 107 IPC read with section 12 of the P.C. Act. It is not necessary for the bribe money to be actually offered or produced before the public servant; it is sufficient that the person who offers to pay the bribe merely makes his proposal, which would constitute an offence of abetment.

R.V. Easwar, J.

1. This is an appeal under section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the PC Act, read with section 374 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. It is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2002 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi by which the appellant, Hari Kishan Bansal was convicted of the offence under section 12 of the PC Act. The appeal is also directed against the order dated 02.09.2002 by which the Special Judge sentenced the appellant to RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for six months.

2. The appeal arises in the following circumstances. One Subhash Chander was employed as Assistant Manager (Vigilance and Security) in the India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) and was posted in Hotel Samrat, Delhi. He also held the additional charge of vigilance and security of Ashok Travels and Tours (ATT) a unit of ITDC. ATT had a panel of tour operators for running LTC (Leave Travel Concession) tours on behalf of ITDC. M/s. R. K. Tourist of Fatehpuri, Delhi of which the appellant herein was the proprietor, was in the said panel. The employees of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), Haridwar, had engaged the coaches belonging to R.K. Tourist for their LTC Tours. There was information received by Subhash Chander, who is the complainant in this case, on 12.08.1994 that the employees of BHEL were claiming false LTC showing documents that they had travelled in ITDC coaches without actually travelling and this was done with the connivance of the appellant herein.

3. Acting on the complaint, Subhash Chander, the complainant, left Delhi and reached Haridwar for a surprise check on the night intervening 13.08.1994 and 14.08.1994. It would appear that he found only 8 buses out of 15 buses scheduled to leave Haridwar on LTC tours for different places; he made a check of the passengers in the 8 coaches with the help of the list of passengers provided by ATT and found that 128 passengers who were supposed to be in those 8 buses were not present, though listed to travel.

4. On the basis of above surprise check, the complainant submitted a report on 16.08.1994 on his return to Delhi, to the Vice President (Security) and Executive Director (Vigilance).

5. On 26th or 27th August, 1994, the appellant-accused is alleged to have made a telephonic call to the complainant that the irregularity in the matter of LTC of BHEL employees can be hushed up and that he would pay a bribe of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant for hushing up the same @ Rs.500/- per coach for 15 coaches which were involved. It is alleged that in spite of the repeated refusal of the complainant, the appellant-accused was trying hard to persuade him to accept the bribe. The appellant-accused also informed the complainant on 01.09.1994 over telephone that he would meet the complainant at the complainant’s office at about 12:30 hrs. on 02.09.1994. The complainant spurned the offer of bribe, but told the appellant that he may come to his office on 02.09.1994 to meet him.

6. On 02.09.1994 the complainant, who is PW-1, lodged a complaint with the SP, CBI narrating the aforesaid facts. The FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint and the case was handed over to R.S. Tokas, Inspector (PW-6) for the purpose of laying a trap. Inspector Tokas, who was the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) requisitioned the services of two independent witnesses namely Swami Nath Sah (PW-2) and Deep Pant (PW-3), Peon and Assistant respectively in the vigilance section of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. They were informed about the complaint. PW-3 i.e. Deep Pant was to act as the shadow witness to hear and see the conversation/ transaction. All the formalities of the trap laying procedure were finalised. It was arranged that the complainant was to give the pre-appointed signal as soon as the transaction of giving the bribe money was completed.

7. The trap par