The demand and acceptance of bribe were proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence of PW-3, corroborated by police witnesses and other independent evidence.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th January 2009 passed by the Special Judge, Central District02, Delhi in CC No. 195/01 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and the order on sentence dated 27th January 2009 whereby for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, the Appellant was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) with a fine of Rs. 15,000 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for 30 days and for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, to RI for 2½ years and fine of Rs.15,000 and in default to undergo SI for 30 days. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. By an order dated 4th February 2009 while admitting the appeal, the sentence awarded to the Appellant was suspended.

The case of the prosecution

2. The case of the prosecution is that Mrs. Madhu Bala, the Complainant (PW-3) was running a business of packing, shipping and a travel agency under the name and style of M/s. Duro Pack at C-4/67, SDA, New Delhi and was filing her income tax returns (‘ITRs’) regularly. The ITR filed by her for the assessment year 1997-98 was under scrutiny with the Appellant who was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (‘ACIT’), Circle 20 (1). The office of the Appellant was at Room No. 163, C.R. Building, ITO Delhi. On 7th March 2000, PW-3 met the Appellant for ascertaining whether any further information was required for the ITR filed by her. According to PW-3, the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.75,000 from her to clear her case. On her repeated request, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.50,000 and the Appellant informed her that he would let her know finally in a day or two. PW-3 is then supposed to have sought some time to make payment as it was a large sum. However, PW-3 did not want to pay any bribe and thus lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’), Anti Corruption Branch (‘ACB’) on 9th March 2000.

3. The further case of the prosecution is that at around 10.30 am, PW-3 gave an oral complaint to the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’), CBI, ACB about the alleged demand of a bribe by the Appellant. The SP directed Inspector Azad Singh (PW-12) to verify the genuineness of the complaint. After arranging an audio cassette and ensuring that it was blank PW-12 in the presence of two independent witnesses i.e. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Eviction Inspector (PW-5) and Mr. Virendra Prasad, Superintendent (PW-4) both from the Directorate of Estates, New Delhi recorded a conversation made by PW-3 to the Appellant on telephone No. 3316392 (of the ITO) from telephone No. 4362460. According to the prosecution, the conversation revealed that PW-3 had repeatedly requested the Appellant to reduce the bribe amount and the Appellant had asked her to come at around 4 pm to pay whatever amount she had collected by that time. The original cassette was sealed. A memo (Ex.PW-3/A) of the telephone conversation was prepared. The conversation is stated to have commenced at 11:30 am and concluded at 11:45 am.

4. It was thereafter decided to lay a trap for the Appellant. PW-3 then submitted a written complaint (Ex.PW-3/B) on the basis of which a case was registered by the CBI and entrusted to PW-12 for laying a trap. A trap team of CBI officers along with PW-3 and PWs-4 and 5 was constituted. PW-3 produced Rs.15,000 in the form of a hundred government currency (‘GC’) notes of Rs.100 each and a hundred GC notes of Rs.50 each. The serial numbers of the notes were noted down in an annexure to the handing over memo (Ex. PW-3/C and 3/C-1). The GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder by PW-12 and a practical demonstration through PW-4 was given.

5. The tainted GC notes were kept in the hand bag of PW-3. The instructions to PW-3 were that she had to hand over the tainted GC notes to the Appellant only on speci