The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and recovery of illegal gratification for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. Both the Criminal Appeals has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 16.04.2009 passed by District and Sessions Judge (Anti Corruption Act Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 29/2005 with the following prayers:-

In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 297/2009:

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and accused appellant may be acquitted from all the charges leveled against him."

In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 299/2009:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, the judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Session, A.C.D. Cases, Bikaner dated 16.04.2009 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the accused-appellant may kindly be acquitted for the alleged charges leveled against him."

2. The controversy in both the appeals are common, and the facts in brief of the same, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for appellants are that one F.I.R. was lodged on 24.06.2004 by Shri Amar Singh (P.W.1), stating that he went to the Anti - Corruption Office at Hanumangarh, where he submitted an application stating therein that, about 14-15 bighas of land is situated at 22 PBN in his father's name, and that there was also an electricity connection in the name of his father, of which when the dues towards electricity bills were left unpaid, the electricity connection was discontinued. And that, due to the old age of his father, the complainant was managing the agricultural work on the said land, and with a view to restart the electricity connection, he sought to pay the unpaid dues towards the pending electricity bills, and therefore made the said application. And that, he went to one A.E.N., and later on met with J.E.N. Shri Lal Chand, who told him to meet with his Babu (LDC) Suresh Kumar, and that Rs. 45,000 will be required of him towards government expenses and that Rs. 20,000/- will be required from him, as bribe. And that the unwilling complainant, went to the concerned police authorities, who gave him a tape-recorder and arranged trap proceedings wherein the complainant, in his T-shirt pocket, went with Rs. 10,000/- in cash, upon which the Addl. S.P. had smeared phenolphthalein powder, to meet the accused. And that, the complainant, at the electricity department, paid Rs. 10,000/- to Suresh Kumar, and when the concerned police authorities apprehended him, the notes recovered were found to be the same notes smeared with the phenolphthalein powder. And that, subsequently the A.C.B. authorities filed charge sheet against the appellants for offences under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) P.C. Act and 120-B I.P.C. And that thereafter, charges were framed against them, the prosecution examined the prosecution witnesses, and exhibited and proved documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-49.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants jointly submit that the statements of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the allegations of the prosecution against them, in the following manner:-

3.1 Suresh Kumar (appellant in the S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2009; hereinafter referred to as 'the first appeal') stated that he did not make any demand of money from the complainant as bribe for himself and the Junior Engineer, but that the electricity bill of Rs. 4,205/- at 18% interest were due from the complainant, which were pending dues towards their unpaid electricity bills, and that the complainant had deposited the money solely for that purpose only.

3.2 Lal Chand (appellant in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 299/2009; hereinafter referred to as 'the second appeal') stated that he neither made any demand for bribe from the complainant, neither did he accept the same from the complainant, and that he further stated that he did not direct or tell Suresh Kumar to demand/accept any bribe from the complainant on his behalf, and that he was not present on the spot