The prosecution must establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. A.D. Shah for the appellant and Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent State. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29th March, 1999 of his conviction u/s. 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. By such impugned judgment, the Special Judge of Ahmedabad City has awarded the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of Six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable u/s. 7 of the Act and Rigorous Imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days for the offences punishable u/s. 13 (1) (d) and 13 of the Act.

2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is to the effect that, the complainant Navinbhai Hargovinddas Patel who was carrying on business of manufacturing of stapler pins wanted financial assistance in the form of loan facility from the Gujarat State Financial Corporation in addition to existing loan of Rs. 49,000/- and working capital of Rs. 8900/- for which he has applied on 28th November, 1992 and he was conveyed by the corporation that the loan of about Rs. 59,000/- has been sanctioned. However, it is alleged by the complainant that since loan was not disbursed, he had been to the office of the corporation to inquire about the loan papers as to where his file was and it is his case that it was revealed by him that his file was pending with the Legal Assistant namely Renukaben who is accused and appellant herein. It is further contended by the complainant that on 9th November, 1993, he met the accused, when the accused found that the papers of surety were having certain erasers and therefore, it was conveyed to the complainant that such papers of surety cannot be accepted because of such erasers/errors/corrections and or overwriting and therefore, the accused has called upon the complainant to produce new papers. It is further contended that on such discussion, the appellant has handed over three forms out of which one was duly filled-in and two were blank and that the complainant was required to notarize the filled-up form after filling certain blanks and was required to get attested the same from the court. At such juncture, now it is alleged by the complainant that the appellant has demanded an amount of Rs. 250/- towards illegal gratification and bribe for processing his papers at the earliest and to see that, he gets the amount immediately. However, when the complainant has disclosed that he did not have such amount readily available at that time, the appellant had called upon him on the next day at about 03 : 00 pm with an amount of Rs. 250/- and duly attested papers as discussed above.

3. Thereafter, usual story of unwillingness to pay such amount by the complainant, filing of the complaint, pre-trapped arrangement and drawing of its panchnama etc. activities had taken place. However, in all such cases, unless there is any issue during any such activities, those activities are routine and formal in nature and therefore, its discussion and reproduction are not much material. More particularly, when it is well described more than once on record in the form of pleadings as well as in the impugned judgment.

4. Therefore, we need to scrutinize, considering the settled legal position that whether there is any cogent, reliable and sufficient evidence to prove following four issues only wise (1) prior demand of bribe, (2) express demand of bribe amount just before the raid, (3) passing of and thereby acceptance of tainted currency notes and (4) possession of tainted currency notes by the accused at the time of raid.

5. As aforesaid, there must be the disclosure of prior demand while filing the complaint, but the disclosure of demand in complaint is not suffici