The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the principles related to the grant of sanction, the requirement of a de novo trial for summoned persons, and the burden of proof in corruption cases.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. There are three appellants before this Court. Appellant Satish Kumar Bhalla is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 03.02.2007 and 05.02.2007 respectively wherein he had been convicted for charges under Sections 7 read with 13 (2) and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3-??years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the said Act. For the second offence, the convict had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 9 months. On the same day on the application of Satish Kumar Bhalla filed under Section 319 of the Cr.PC, an order had been passed for summoning of accused Kailash Nath and Ramesh. This was in view of the evidence which had emanated in the version of the complainant (PW-6). Supplementary challan against Kailash Nath and Ramesh had been filed. After the completion of trial, the aforenoted accused were also convicted vide impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 28.02.2011 and 26.03.2011 respectively vide which they had been convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the said Act. Each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the said Act. For the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC, they had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 1 month.

2. All the aforenoted appellants are aggrieved by the aforenoted judgments and orders on sentence.

3. Version of the prosecution has emanated from the complaint of Rajender Kuumar Tiwari (PW-6). As per his complaint (Ex.PW-6/A), a case of misuse of electricity had been lodged against his father-in-law. The complainant was residing along with his father-in-law at house No 3700/C/2, Gali No. 7, Shanti Mohalla, Raghuvar Pura, Delhi. The complainant was looking after the affairs of his father-in-law as he was an aged man. He had his electricity bill decreased from Rs. 1 lac to Rs.30,000/- and had undertaken to pay three installments to the DESU. After the payment of first two installments, the third and last installment was to be paid by 21.01.1995. Further version in the complaint was that after the inspection of the record, the complainant found that an excess amount of Rs.18,000/- has been paid to the DESU; he contacted the dealing officers of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) namely Satish Kumar Bhatta, Assistant Accountant, Kailash Nath, Head Clerk and Ramesh, Clerk; he was told that his work would be done but on a payment of Rs.2,000/- to each of the aforenoted officials. On negotiations, it was agreed that the complainant would pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- to Satish Kumar Bhalla at his shop at Kanti Nagar. Time of payment was agreed to be 07:00 PM on 15.01.1995; thereafter the electricity bill of his father-in-law would be rectified. Since the complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe amount, he had filed this complaint.

4. Pre-trap proceedings were organized. In the raid conducted in the shop of the appellant Satish Kumar Bhalla, the appellant was found to be in possession of the tainted money. The testimony of the complainant Rajender Tiwari (PW-1) was corroborated by the panch witness R.S. Gautam (PW-9). The defence projected by the accused was rejected.

5. On behalf of the appellant Satish Kumar Bhalla, arguments had been addressed in detail by Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate. On behalf of other two co-accused namely Kailash Nath and Ramesh, arguments had been addressed by Mr.Hari Nand Vashishta, Advocate.

6. Learned c