In bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted bribes, otherwise conviction cannot be upheld.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the sole accused in C.C. No. 276/1994 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 27.12.1990, the accused, while posted as Junior Telecommunication Officer in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer II, Okhla Telephone Exchange, MTNL, demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- and later settled for Rs. 800/- from PW1 for facilitating the restoration of a disconnected telephone number of Ms. Roopa Mehta, installed at C-51, East of Kailash, New Delhi.

3. On 27.12.1990, PW1 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.PW1/B, with the S.P., Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi, based on which crime, RC No. 64(A)/90-DLI, that is, Ext. PW1/B FIR was registered alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.

4. PW10, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi, conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under the Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.

5. Ext. PW5/A sanction order for prosecuting the accused was accorded by PW5, the then Area (South), MTNL, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the trial court, the trial court after complying with the formality contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C, on 11.02.1994, framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Ext. PW1/A - G, Ext. PW3/A-B, Ext. PW4/A-1 to A-8, Ext. PW5/A, Ext. PW6/A - B, Ext. PW7/A and Ext. PW9/A were marked in support of the prosecution case.

8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that the present case is falsely foisted against him and that the telephone in question had already been restored on 26.12.1990, prior to the trap being laid and, in such circumstances, no motive remained for him to demand or accept any bribe amount. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2003 held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) read with (2) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated 22.01.2003, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.3,000/- on each count for his conviction under the abovesaid Sections, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for th