The failure of essential witnesses to identify the accused led to the conclusion that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in the overturning of the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the sole accused in CC No. 101/1998 on the file of the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 12.09.2003 and order on sentence dated 16.09.2003 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that the accused while posted as Inspector at the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), Green Park office demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from PW4 on10.06.1998 to be paid on 11.06.1998 for expediting the inspection report which was pending with the accused in relation to electricity connection applied by PW4’s father for his residence. As per the chargesheet/final report dated 10.06.1998, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) read with (2) of the PC Act.

3. On 10.06.1998 PW4 lodged a complaint, i.e., Exhibit PW4/A with the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Delhi, based on which crime, RC No. 32(A)/98-CBI/ACB/DLI, i.e., Exhibit PW7/B was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 of the PC Act.

4. PW7 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report dated 10.06.1998 alleging commission of offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

5. Exhibit PW2/A sanction order dated 26.08.1998 for prosecuting the accused was accorded by PW2, the then Additional General Manager (Administration), DVB.

6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the trial court, the Court on 15.11.1999, framed a Charge against the accused for the offences punishable Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) read with (2) of the PC Act which was read over and explained to the accused which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exhibits PW1/A, PW2/A, PW4/A-E, PW5/A, PW/6A-D, PW6/DC, PW7/A-B, PW8/A1-A6 in support of the case.

8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) of the 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. It was stated by the accused that he had been falsely implicated in the present case.

9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

10.On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2003, held the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and accordingly vide order on sentence dated 16.09.2003, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with of the PC Act. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred the present appeal.

11.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the conviction entered into by the trial court is contrary to law and the materials placed on record. Despite PW1 and the other material witnesses examined in the case failing to identify the accused, the trial Court erroneously proceeded to convict the accused. Hence, the judgment is liable to be set aside.

12.Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is