Insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies resulted in the acquittal of the appellant; essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

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 first accused (A1) in C.C.No. 38/1999 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(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 18.03.1996, A1 while working as Junior Engineer in the Commercial Estate Branch of DDA at Vikas Sadan, in collusion with the second accused, (A2), W/C(R), Mate, DDA, demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000 from PW8 for not demolishing the boundary wall of his shop bearing No. 14, A-1 Market, Lawrence Road, Delhi, and later agreed to accept Rs. 2,000 as bribe.

3. On 18.03.1996, PW8 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext. PW6/A, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, based on which, Crime no. 13/1996,FIR was registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

4. PW7, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, 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 aforementioned sections. 5. Ext. PW1/A and PW2/A Sanction Order for prosecuting the accused persons was accorded by PW1, Member Engineer, DDA and PW2, the then Superintending Engineer, Civil Circle-1, DDA respectively.

6. When the accused persons on receipt of summons appeared before the trial court, the Court after complying with the formality contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C, on 20.04.2001, framed a Charge against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act, which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW4/A-B, Ext. PW5/A, Ext. PW6/A-K, Ext. PW8/A,Ext. PW9/A-B were marked in support of the case.

8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. A1 submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that he discharges his duties as an honest and hardworking government official and in recognition of his services he has also been awarded with several accolades.

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

10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 09.10.2006, held A1 guilty of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act and accordingly, sentenced him under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to fine of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 7 of the PC Act and in default, to undergo SI for a period of three months. A2 has been acquitted under (1) Cr.P.C. of the offences charged against him. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, A1 has preferred the present appeal.

11. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/A1 pointed out that the alleged demand was made on 16.03.1996 and Ext. PW6/A complaint was made