Specific and clinching evidence beyond reasonable doubt is necessary to prove demand and acceptance of bribes for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard Ld. A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval for the State and Ld. Advocate Mr. Nitin M. Amin for the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 is reported to have died. His death certificate is on record which confirms that he died on 14.03.2014, therefore, the appeal stands abated against him. Perused the R&P so also the evidence adduced by the appellant State. The appellant State has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 24th February, 2005 by Special Judge of Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 25/1994, whereby the Sessions Court has acquitted both the respondents from the offences punishable u/s. 7, 12, 10 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution as per charge-sheet is to the effect that, the respondents have demanded an amount of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 500/-respectively from the complainant to clear his bills for the work done by him regarding pipeline for water tank of Jani Vadla village, therefore charges are framed pursuant to ACB Surendranagar Police Station C.R. No. 2/93 dtd. 5.5.93, for which after investigation charge sheet No. 1/1994 was filed on 18th March, 1994.

3. In such appeal, one need to scrutinize, considering the settled legal position that whether there is any cogent, reliable and sufficient evidence to prove following four issues only viz (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.

4. As aforesaid, there must be the disclosure regarding prior demand while filing the complaint, but the disclosure of demand in complaint is not sufficient unless there is cogent and reliable evidence to confirm such demand.

5. To prove his case, the appellant prosecuting agency has examined three witnesses and produced as many as 32 documentary evidences which include communication prior to and after the investigation, documentary evidence regarding work carried out by the complainant, complaint, panchnama, seizure memo, sanction letter, log-book and measurement of the work done by the complainant etc.

6. It is the case of the complainant that the accused No. 1 told the complainant that, two bills of Village Bambore of Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- had been sent to the office and therefore, if the complainant wants to get the payment of such bills at the earliest, he should pay in all Rs. 2000/- towards illegal gratification out of which Rs. 500/- is to be paid to the accused No. 2 and Rs. 1500/- is to be kept by the accused No. 1. The accused No. 1 is now no more and therefore, when prima-facie only evidence regarding involvement of the accused No. 2 is to the effect that, the accused No. 1 has demanded the bribe for the accused No. 2, more particularly, when the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused No. 1, there is no scope or reason to ascertain evidence against the accused No. 2 who was not in picture at all. However, though it can be said that irrespective of abatement or acquittal of respondent No. 1 if there is evidence to prove that the accused No. 2 has demanded the amount of bribe and accepted the same, he can certainly be punished and convicted. For the purpose, necessary evidence needs to be examined.

7. The P.W. No. 1 at Exhibit 90 is complainant Hussainbhai Rahemanbhai, it is his say on oath that when he met accused No. 2, the accused No. 2 has asked for bribe and as usual when he deemed it fit not to pay bribe, he lodged a complaint and after managing pre-trap requirement, he called the accused No. 2 at his house and on the date of the incident, when he was waiting for the accused No. 2, practically, the accused No. 2 has never turned up and did not reach to his house to accept the bribe, but accused No. 1 had come to his house and according to him, he has paid the amount to the accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 has accepte