The judgment establishes that demand or obtainment of illegal gratification can be inferred from circumstances, and the authenticity of evidence, including audio recordings, can be crucial in proving the prosecution's case.

Mukta Gupta, J;—

1. The Appellant impugnes the judgment dated 26th March, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 27th March, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 7 and 13(2) PC Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on each count.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that there is total non-application of mind while granting the sanction. Neither the demand nor acceptance has been proved. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. The recovery is highly doubtful in view of the contradictory statement of the prosecution witnesses. The recovery was made from beneath the sofa. The hand-wash allegedly taken was also doubtful. The audio equipment was not exhibited. Further S.I. Vipin Kumar and PW2 went out to get the copies of the audio recording made and thus material evidence was permitted to go out in unsealed condition. The voice in the audio equipment has not been proved to be that of the Appellant. Material witnesses like S.I. Vipin Kumar have not been examined. The cassettes of the alleged recording were not sealed. Tampering is not ruled out. The Appellant was not in a position to do what the complainant wanted him to do. Hence the motive has not been proved. PW4 stated that he did not remember if wash of anything else was taken. Further during the search he had gone to the gypsy of the CBI. The alleged demand was made on 2nd April, 1996 whereas the contract of the complainant Shamsher Singh had expired on 1st April, 1996 and he had been served with one month’s notice as per PW8. Even accepting the transcript to be true the words `laye hoo’ are not there. Thus, no demand at the time of acceptance has been proved. PW4 in his cross-examination stated that he provided 80 security personnels to IARI whereas PW8 the Joint Director, Administration Shri Chetan Swaroop Isser stated that not more than 50 personnel can be given. He further stated that the contract of M/s. Colonel Security expired on 31st March, 1996. PW4 in his cross-examination admitted that he met the Appellant for the pending bills and not for extension of the contract. PW4 further admitted that the Appellant did not personally demand the amount from the complainant but one staff person followed him when he came out of the office and stated that if the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- work will be done. Thus, there was no initial demand from the Appellant.

3. PW4 stated that no document was signed in CBI office but the same was done in the gypsy of the CBI parked outside. Vide letter dated 9th February, 1996 itself the complainant was informed about the poor performance. The complainant denied that on 2nd April, 1996 exchange of hot words took place between the complainant and the Appellant. Though the complainant states that the complaint was written a day prior, however the complaint is dated 4th April, 1996. PW2 Brij Bhusan Sharma, the recovery witness has not supported the prosecution case. He stated that he did not remember who recovered the money. He further stated that the money was lying scattered on the sofa. PW5 Captain R.K. Marwah who authenticated the sanction on behalf of the sanctioning authority President ICAR stated that he did not know the details of the documents which were considered before granting sanction for prosecution. Thus there is total non-application of mind. He further admitted that a draft sanction order was put up before him along with the approval of President ICAR and thereafter he signed on behalf of the President ICAR. The impugned judgment is more in the form of rebuttal arguments of the Appellant than the prosecution case. Since no demand has been proved, the presumption under Sectio