The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive proof of the accused's involvement in offering a bribe, the admissibility of extra judicial confessions, and the application of the presumption under Section 20(2) of the PC Act.

1. Mr. Rama Kant Sharma has, in this appeal, challenged the judgment dated 23rd November 2007 and the order of sentence dated 26th November 2007 passed by the learned Special Judge in Complaint 77 of 2002 arising out of the First Information Report (‘FIR’) No. 33 of 2001, holding the Appellant/accused guilty of the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 20,000, and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

2. The accused remained on bail throughout the period of trial. During the pendency of the present appeal the sentence awarded to him was suspended.

3. The case of the prosecution was that the accused, as a representative of M/s APS International, went to the office of the Special Protection Group (‘SPG’) at 1, Safdarjung Lane, New Delhi, on 1st June 2001 where he met one Shri R.C. Saxena (PW1), the Complainant and allegedly gave him an envelope containing Rs. 2,000 as a bribe/illegal gratification. Mr. Saxena is then stated to have taken the accused to his senior officers. A call was made to the Police Control Room (‘PCR’) and information was given to the Police Station (‘PS’) at Tughlak Road. It is stated that the in charge of the PCR, SI Gajraj Singh (PW4) and the SI of PS Tughlak Road, Mr. Sunil Kumar (PW-10), came to the SPG office, took the accused to the PS Tughlak Road, where, upon information being given, the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau (‘ACB’), the Inspector, Smt. Sudesh Kumari (PW- 11) came with a panch witness, Mr. Pratap Singh (PW-5), to whom PW-1 handed over the envelope given to him in the police station by the Station House Officer (‘SHO’). The panch witness is then stated to have taken out the sum of Rs. 2,000 from the envelope after making the necessary documents, the accused was thereafter arrested. It is further stated that PW- 11 handed over the investigation to Inspector, Mr. M.A. Salam (PW-12), who filed the chargesheet.

4. The prosecution case was that ten Door Frame Metal Detectors (DFMDs) were supplied by M/s Reliance Electronics, Nashik, through their representative, M/s APS International, to the SPG. Since the products supplied did not conform to the specification and the samples shown at the time of technical evaluation, the supplier was asked to rectify the defect and the bill of M/s. APS International was, therefore, not cleared. The allegation is that, on 1st June 2001, the accused went to the office of the SPG, met Mr. R.C. Saxena (PW1), who was working as Security Officer (Technical Incharge) SPG. It is further stated that the Appellant kept an envelope in the hand of PW1. When PW-1 asked him about the envelope, the accused told him that he had come from APS International and asked PW1 to clear the bills by telling him that the defects in the DFMDs would be taken care of. Thereafter, PW-1 took him to the senior officers and, according to the prosecution, this led to his ultimate arrest, as has already been described hereinbefore.

5. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC., the Appellant denied the prosecution case. He alleged that his confessional statement was taken under threat and duress and was not voluntary. The accused also filed a written statement under Section 243(1) CrPC. The accused contended that had gone to the SPG office for seeking information regarding violation of human rights, since, at that point in time, he was an employee of the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) and had gained entry into the SPG office on the basis of his NHRC identity card. The Appellant also produced one Mr. Satbir Singh, working in the NHRC, as a defence witness (DW-1). The interview letter and the appointment letter dated 1/2nd May 2001 sent to the accused by the NHRC were exhibited. In his cross-examination he stated that there was no system in the NHRC for maintaining the departure and arrival entries of employe