The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance to establish guilt under Section 7 of the act. The judgment also emphasizes the need for the benefit of doubt to be given to the accused in the presence of inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - In the above captioned two appeals, challenge is to the impugned judgment dated 13.09.2012 and order on sentence dated 29.09.2012, vide which appellant- Kuldeep Singh Dhankar has been held guilty for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as the 'PC act') read with Section 120-B IPC and directed to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

2. In addition, the impugned judgment and order on sentence also holds guilty appellant-Sanjay Gupta for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC act read with Section 120B IPC and he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of one month.

3. With the consent of learned counsel representing both the sides, theses appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. appellant- Kuldeep Singh Dhankar was working as Food and Supplies Officer, Civil Supplies, Enforcement Branch, who has purportedly called up the complainant- Subhash Chand Sharma alleging him that he was adulterating light diesel oil with kerosene oil and demanded Rs.10.00 Lacs threatening that he would shut down his shop and according to complainant, the matter was settled at a bribe of Rs.3.50 Lacs. On the complaint of complainant dated 17.01.2005, RC bearing No. 05(a)/2005/CBI/aCB/New Delhi was registered on 18.05.2005 and a trap was laid. appellant-Sanjay Gupta was apprehended accepting bribe of Rs.2.00 Lac and thereafter, appellant - Kuldeep Singh Dhankar was also arrested. after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial court on 07.11.2005 and charge was framed for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of the PC act read with Section 120 IPC against both the appellants/accused persons.

5. Prosecution had got examined fourteen witnesses comprising of Prem Raj Kaushik (PW-1), Officer in Food and Supplies Department, in support of documents seized from the department; C.L. Bansal (PW-2) & Dr. Rajinder Singh (PW-4), Senior Scientific Officer and Principal Scientific Officers, CFSL; Mr. S. Raghunathan (PW-3), Chief Secretary, Delhi Government to prove sanction order; Gulshan arora (PW-5), Nodal Officer, HUTCH and Umesh Kalara (PW-7) Nodal Officer Idea Cellular Limited, to prove call detail records; Laxmi Narain (PW-6) waterman in the department where appellant was working; Complainant- Subhash Chand Sharma (PW-9) and Pancham Singh (PW-8), who was working for complainant and B.B. Bhatia (PW-10) an independent witness. Besides, official witness, Mridula Shukla (PW-12) Deputy SP, who had investigated, laid the trap and collected the documents and filed the charge sheet; Inspector alok Kumar (PW-13), who had arrested the appellant from his office and Inspector C.K. Sharma (PW-14), Trap Laying Officer were also got examined by the prosecution. appellants/accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C before the learned trial court had claimed that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. appellant- Kuldeep Singh Dhankar had sought to examine witnesses in his defence, whereas appellant- Sanjay Gupta did not lead any evidence. Trial court had relied upon evidence of afore-referred prosecution witnesses to convict and sentence the appellants as noted herein above.

6. Challenging the guilt and conviction of the appellants by the learned trial court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in not considering the inherent inconsistencies and contradictions in the story of prosecution and testimon