The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, requiring independent corroboration, particularly when the key witness has credibility issues.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the PC Act) read with Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the sole accused in C.C. No. 29/1996 on the file of Special Judge, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 25.09.2002 and order on sentence dated 27.09.2002, as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) read with (2) of the PC Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as Security Officer (Health) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and being a public servant, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from PW2, a retired Security Supervisor (Health), for forwarding his pension file to the Additional Commissioner (Health), and on 22.11.1993 agreed to accept Rs.5,000/- on 24.11.1993 at his residence as part payment, with the balance to be paid at the time of final settlement of the pension claim.

3. On 24.11.1993, PW4 lodged a complaint, that is, Exhibit. PW2/A with the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Delhi, based on which Crime No.53/1993, that is, Exhibit. PW14/A FIR was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act.

4. PW14, Inspector, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi Police, conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report alleging commission of offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

5. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by PW1, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, vide Exhibit. PW1/A order dated 07.10.1996.

6. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court vide order dated 28.05.1997, framed a charge under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) read with (2) of the PC Act, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of prosecution, PWs 1 to 14 were examined and Exhibits. PW1/A, PW1/B, PW1/DA, PW1/DB, PW2/A-G, PW2/DA, PW2/DB, PW4/A-F, PW6/A-C, PW6/C1-C4, PW6/DA, PW6/DB, PW8/A, PW10/A-B, PW11/Aand PW14/A were marked in support of the case.

8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 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. He submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case as PW2 had a grudge against him.

9. After questioning the accused under Section. 313 Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (SeeMoidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.

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

11. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2002 held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) read w