Both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are required for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without proven demand fails to establish culpability.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

1. Heard Sri M Nath, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Bhattacharjee for the appellant and also heard B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. The Trial Court records as requisitioned have been received and have been perused with the assistance of the Learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned APP.

3. The judgement dated 19.6.2014 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case no 1/2010, holding the appellant guilty of commission of offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rupees 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two months has been assailed in this Criminal Appeal. The alleged date of commission of the offence was 27.2.2004, on which date the appellant had been apprehended in a “Trap Case’ by the officials of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station Station, Guwahati, (hereinafter referred to as V&AC) when he allegedly accepted a bribe of Rs 1800/- from the informant in connection with a transport permit of a vehicle owned by the informant.

4. The prosecution case, as unfolded during trial, is that on 27.02.2004, one Sri Bhaskar Barman of Nalbari lodged an FIR before the Superintendent of Police, V&AC, Assam, Guwahati alleging that one Sri Amar Deka, an employee of the office of the Commissioner of Transport, Housefed, Dispur had been demanding bribe 3000/- for putting up the papers before the concerned office relating to permit of his vehicle No. AS146411. It was also alleged in the FIR that on 27.02.2004 the accused had agreed to give the permit to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 1800/- and as such prayed to take appropriate action. On receipt of the FIR the Superintendent of Police, V&AC registered ACB PS Case No. 2/2004 u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On receipt of the FIR, the officer in charge cum Superintendent of Police, V&AC directed Inspector of Police, Sarbananda Gohain to lay a trap on accused Amar Deka, LDA of the office of the Commissioner of Transport, Guwahati constituting a trap team consisting of 10 members. The trap team also comprised Umesh Dutta, who was an independent witness and Bhaskar Barman who was the complainant. The trap team used phenolphthalein powder and before going for trap a practical demonstration was done in the office of the V&AC and a pre-trap memorandum was also prepared.

At the office of the Commissioner of Transport, Housefed, Dispur, Guwahati, as per trap plan, complainant Bhaskar Barman put the trap money amounting to Rs. 1800/- which were treated with phenolphthalein powder on the table of the appellant and he picked up the money and was caught red handed. Investigation revealed a prima facie case against accused Amar Deka u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after getting the necessary sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, charge sheet was filed against the accused u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 10 Nos of Prosecution Witnesses (PWs), including the complainant, one independent witness, one FSL expert, the members of trap laying team, the prosecution sanction authority and the Investigating Officer(s).

6. The defence in order to disprove the prosecution case examined 3 Nos. of Defence witnesses (DWs).

7. The Learned Trial Court examined one Court witness as CW-1 during trial in order to determine the plea of insanity taken by the accused. The deposition of CW-1 was held to be not connected with the charge framed against the accused Sri Amar Deka, and as such the deposition of CW-1 was not discussed while appreciating the evidence of the case.

8. The Ld. Trial Court framed the following points for determination.

“POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

“5. Whether on 27.02.2004 accused Amar Deka while serving as Dealing As