For convictions under corruption laws, prosecution must conclusively prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe alongside establishing a clear conspiracy. Inconsistencies in testimonies undermine the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Criminal conspiracy and corruption - Appellant, Assistant Manager at DSIDC, allegedly demanded and accepted bribe for possession of shed - Prosecution alleged demand made on 08.06.1993 and bribery occurred on 11.06.1993 - However, appellant argued that the alleged bribe was part of a false and fabricated case following a misunderstanding regarding shed allocation. (Paras 1-3, 59, 73)

(B) Legal Standards - For a conviction under corruption offenses, the prosecution must establish demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribery beyond reasonable doubt, along with a clear conspiracy between parties. (Paras 36, 40, 60)

Facts of the case:
Appellant B. Tiwari, through a conspiracy with co-accused, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.2000/- from complainant Satish Kumar for possession of a shed. (Paras 1, 4)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the allegations. The conviction was not sustainable, ruling that fundamental elements of the accusations were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 77, 78)

Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the bribe demand, the existence of a conspiracy between co-accused, and the credibility of prosecution witnesses. (Paras 57, 61)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution contained significant discrepancies and failed to meet the burden of proof required for conviction under the alleged corruption charges. The appellant was acquitted on the grounds of insufficient evidence and the need for benefit of doubt. (Paras 78)

Result: Appeals allowed, judgment set aside, and the appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and positions of parties (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of the prosecution's investigation and evidence (Para 8 , 11)
3. statement of the accused and defense evidence (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. arguments and submissions made in appeal (Para 17 , 18)
5. appellant's contention regarding the evidence and procedural flaws (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. cbi's rebuttals and refutations of the appellant's claims (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
7. court's assessment of the evidentiary discrepancies (Para 59 , 60 , 61)
8. final judgment and acquittal of the appellant (Para 78)

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The appellant B. Tiwari, S/o Sh. P.S. Tiwari vide the present appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 19.05.2001 of the Special Judge, THC, Delhi in RC No.40(A)/93-DLI whereby the appellant herein, posted as Assistant Manager of the Delhi State Industry Development Corporation and co-accused Mr. R.K. Pandey, a private person were both held guilty of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, r/w Sections 7, 13 (2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having entered into a criminal conspiracy to receive illegal gratification for showing a favour to Mr. Satish Kumar (the complainant) in pursuance of which conspiracy, the appellant herein being a public servant abused his official position and demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant by directing him to hand over the bribe money to the accused no.2 i.e. Mr. R.K. Pandey who accordingly accepted the same other than legal remuneration on 11.06.1993.

2. As per the prosecution version, the complainant Mr. Satish Kumar had visited the Khichripur Office of DSIDC for taking possession of a working shed No.40 allotted to him by the DSIDC in Khichripur, for which on 08.06.1993, the accused no.1 i.e. the appellant herein had as per the complaint made a demand for illegal gratification and agreed to accept a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant to be paid on 11.06.1993 for giving possession of the said shed.

3. The appellant also assails the impugned order on sentence dated 19.05.2001 whereby the appellant herein, the public servant was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two (2)months qua the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the appellant herein was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of the payment of the said fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or in default to further undergo SI for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with it having been directed vide the impugned order on sentence that all substantive sentences would run concurrently and he would also be entitled to set off for the period of detention he has undergone during the investigation or trial of the case.

4. The co-convict R.K.Pandey found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to further undergo SI for a period of 15 days.

5. Vide the impugned order on sentence dated 19.05.2001 itself, the appellant herein and the co-convict were granted bail for filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and sentence.

6. Vide order dated 20.06.2001 in Crl.M.A.1327/2001, the appellant herein was allowed to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge.

7. Vide order dated 23.08.2001