IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money without evidence of demand is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.

Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No.11/2018.

3. The informant Sushil Patowary wanted to purchase the 42 Seater Star Bus. Therefore, on 14th December, 2015 at about 4.30 P.M., he went to the office of the Transport Commissioner, Guwahati for getting an “Assurance Letter” for procuring road permit. Mr. Patowary met the present appellant who was working there as the Senior Assistant.

4. The appellant allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.38,000/-as bribe for issuing the said “Assurance Letter”.

5. The informant Mr. Patowary, therefore, 07.12.2015 approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station by filing a written complaint.

6. Police registered the ACB P.S. Case No.15/2015 under Section 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

7. Police laid a trap. Accordingly, on 07.12.2015, Mr. Patowary paid a cash amount of Rs.8,000/-the appellant and the police team caught him red-handed.

8. Police further recovered an amount of Rs.7,09,470/-from the possession of the appellant. The appellant was arrested.

9. Finally, on conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 7/13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

10. The trial court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant.

11. The prosecution side examined 16(sixteen) witnesses. The appellant examined 2(two) defence witnesses.

12. Finally, on the basis of evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.8,000/-with default stipulations. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and was sentenced to pay Rs.10,000/-with default stipulations.

13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal has been filed.

14. The primary ground of appeal is that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. It has been pointed out that the PW.3 in his cross-examination has stated that the appellant never demanded money on his behalf though he used to issue the said “Assurance Letter”.

15. I have gone through the prosecution evidence as well as defence evidence.

16. The first prosecution witness was Satyajit Das Choudhury. He is a constable. On 07.12.2015, he accompanied the police team who caught the appellant red-handed at the time of accepting a cash amount of Rs.8,000/-. The aforesaid incident took place in front of his eyes.

17. At the time of his cross-examination, the appellant had suggested that he was not present at the time of occurrence. Apart from this suggestion which was denied by the witness, there is nothing relevant in his cross-examination.

18. The second prosecution witness is Bhagawan Das. He is also a police constable. He accompanied the police team on 07.12.2015 and witnessed the occurrence.

19. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he did not witness the appellant receiving the bribe from the informant.

20. The third prosecution witness is Sushil Patowary. He is the informant. By profession, he is a journalist. He narrated the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief.

21. In his cross-examination, Mr. Patowary has stated that on 04.12.2015, when he met the appellant for the first time, the appellant did not directly demand any money from him. The appellant reportedly informed this witness that in order get the “Assurance Letter”, he would have to spend some money. This witness agreed to bear the expenses. Accordingly, on 07.12.2015, Mr. Patowary paid Rs.8,000/-to the appella