Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, and the prosecution must prove the demand of gratification beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgement dated 29.03.2007 and the order on sentence dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Ld. Spl. Judge in SC No. 12/2004 arising from FIR No. 38/2003 at PS Anti-Corruption Branch. Vide the impugned judgement dated 29.03.2007 the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and vide the order on sentence dated 30.03.2007 he was sentenced to undergo RI for three and a half years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, and in default of fine, he was directed to undergo SI for a period of three months. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three and a half years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and in default of fine, he was further directed to undergo SI for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the benefit under section 428 CrPC was also extended to the appellant.

2. Aggrieved of this, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 374(1) CrPC.

3. Briefly stated the facts are that on 05.08.2003 the complainant one Jai Narayan Saini made a complaint tothe Anti-Corruption Branch alleging therein that he had gone to the office of Delhi Jal Board regarding the problem of hefty water bills and met one meter reader also named Jai Narayan(accused) who is the appellant herein. It was alleged that Jai Narayan (accused) initially demanded a bribe of Rs.500/- for issuing the duplicate water bills, however when the complainant expressed his inability to pay such a high demand amount, he asked the complainant to give him a bribe of Rs.300/- on the next day i.e. 05.08.2003, for issuing the duplicate water bills in the name of his wife, in respect of house No. A-25, Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi.

4. Pursuant to the above complainant, a raid was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Branch along with the Panch Witness namely Shri Mahesh Kumar and the complainant. Allegedly, the accused was trapped by the raiding team of the Anti-Corruption Branch on 05.08.2003 at about 11.30 AM at the cash counter of the Delhi Jal Board (Water-I) Office, Civil Line Zone, Jahangirpur, Delhi, while allegedly the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe money of Rs.300/- from the complainant for issuing a duplicate water bill in the name of his wife in respect of house No.A-25, Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi.

5. After completion of the proceedings, the present FIR bearing No. 38/2003 was registered.The accused was arrested on 05.08.2023 itself. Thereafter, challan was filed before the concerned Court and the charges were framed under sections 7 r/w section 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. Thereafter, during the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined 12 witnesses, of which, the star witnesses were the complainant himself (PW-3), Panch witness namely Mahesh Kumar (PW-5) and the Raid officer namely Inspector Lalit Mohan (PW-10). It was the case of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the said FIR and that there was no demand of gratification. However, the learned Special Judge relying on the evidence of the Raid officer (PW-10) and Panch witness (PW-5) held that it stood proved beyond any doubt that the accused had accepted bribe money of Rs.300/- from the complainant (PW-3) in the presence of Panch witness (PW-5) and that the bribe money was recovered from the left pocket of his shirt. Ld. Special Judge held that since the recovery of the bribe money from the accused stood proved, therefore the accused had to rebut the statutory presumption under section 20 of PC Act. Ld. Special Judge held that since the stance of the accused in his statement under section 313 CrPC is merely of bald denial and since he did not put forth any defence, thus the accused did not explain the recovery of the bribe money from his pos