The main legal point established in the judgment is the gravity and seriousness of corruption, as well as the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which emphasize the need to prove demand for illegal gratification and the consequences of failing to do so.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C has been preferred praying for the following reliefs:-

"It is therefore prayed that appeal of the appellant may kindly be accepted and conviction and sentenced passed by the learned Special Judge Anticorruption case dated 18.1.90 in original case No. 2/85 may kindly be set-aside."

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.01.1990, whereby the learned Court below has convicted Dr. Soni, the accused, for the offences under Sections 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 I.P.C., and sentenced him for 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo an imprisonment of 6 months, and 2 years imprisonment, respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the appellant are that it is the version of the prosecution that while the appellant, Dr. Amritlal Soni, was posted as a Medical Officer, in the Government Hospital at Mollasar, and on 03.08.1982 he examined two girls, Geeta and Shanti to ascertain whether they had been raped, as referred to him by the S.H.O. Bardava. And that, upon examination the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 2500/- from Ramchandra, P.W. 2 Geeta's maternal uncle, in order to produce the said medical report. And that, Ramchandra lodged a complaint with the D.S.P. A.C.D. Nagaur, Mr. Ram Gopal, who upon the receipt of the said complaint began arranging the trap proceedings. And that, on 06. 08.1982 when the accused was returning from Deedwana by Jeep, the complainant paid the amount and the Doctor was apprehended during the trap proceedings, by the concerned authorities. Subsequently, the charge-sheet against the accused was filed, and during trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and 29 documents, and that the learned Court below convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Court below has erred in passing the impugned judgment convicting Dr. Soni as the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of any demand for illegal gratification made by the accused herein. Learned counsel fortifies the submission so made, by submitting that there is a clear absence of any such demand in the testimony given by P.W. 2, and that the testimony of P.W. 3 reveals that no money was demanded by the accused in the Jeep. And that in the absence of such a fundamental ingredient for the offence under Section 5 of the Act of 1947, the conviction of the accused Dr. Soni is not sustainable in the of eye of the law.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that as per the statements made by P.W. 2 during his testimony, that the money was given to one Heersingh and the accused took the money from him and put the same in a bag, which was not produced, but another bag, as Article 1 was produced in the Court below.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecution sanction acquired by the prosecution from P.W. 8 who was not a competent authority to give the sanction to prosecute the accused Dr. Soni.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Court below has rightly proceeded in convicting the accused after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on record before it.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits, that the motive for the demand of illegal gratification is said to be established, since the accused herein sought the bribe from the complainant, Ramchandra, for the production of the medical report of the two girls, Geeta and Shanti, who were examined by the Accused Dr. Soni to ascertain whether they were raped.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that when the concerned police authorities attempted to conduct the trap proceedings at