IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient to establish guilt without corroborating evidence of these elements.

JUDGMENT :

(Birendra Kumar, J.) :

1. The sole appellant Babu Lal has challenged his conviction by judgment and order dated 1.12.2023 passed by the Learned Special Court, Anti Corruption, Udaipur in Special Sessions Case No. 5/ 2011 arising out of FIR No 237/2009 registered with ACB Police Station, Jaipur.

By the impugned judgment, the Learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”) and awarded 1 year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/-. Similar imprisonment and fine has been imposed for offence under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine, additional 1 month simple imprisonment has been awarded.

2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written complaint dated 10.9.2009 of PW.1 Bagheswar Ahari is that the complainant is a Teacher and had applied for personal loan from Bank of Baroda at Paloda Branch in the District Banswara in August 2009. The Bank Manager (Mr. B.L. Meena present appellant) asked for Rs.5,000/-for sanction of loan of Rs.1 lakh. Rs.5000/-was demanded as gratification. The complainant met the assistant of the bank Mr. Ram Niwas Meena. Ram Niwas also said that Rs.5000/-gratification would be required for sanction of loan of Rs.1 lakh. The complainant further stated that since he does not want to bribe a public servant, action should be taken against them as both are adamant not to pass the loan without gratification. On 8.9.2009, the complainant had visited the bank and again Ram Niwas Meena had asked for Rs.5,000/-, only then the loan would be sanctioned. At that time under compulsion, the complainant agreed to pay the gratification.

The correctness of the aforesaid complaint (Ex.P1) was verified confidentially on 11.09.2009 by recording conversation. The ACB Authorities asked the appellant to appear on 12.09.2009 for trap, however, the complainant expressed his inability due to some conference of the teachers as the complainant was Vice President of the Association. On 13.9.2009 it was Sunday, hence, it was decided to arrange trap on 14.9.2009. On 14.9.2009, a trap was arranged and the graft money of Rs.3000/-was recovered from the drawer of the table of the appellant. The appellant immediately stated to the ACB Authorities involved in the trap that Rs.3000/-was processing fee of the loan which the complainant had not paid. Moreover, no work of the complainant was pending with the appellant as loan of Rs.80,000/-against request of Rs.1 lakh was already sanctioned and deposited in the bank account of the complainant. Rs.80,000/-was sanctioned according to financial capacity of the complainant to repay.

3. After the aforesaid exercise, the ACB registered FIR No. 237/2009 vide Ex.P.31 on 16.9.2009. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted and accordingly, trial resulted in conviction.

4. Mr. Madhav Mitra learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that application for loan of the complainant (PW.1) was admittedly received in August 2009, whereunder the complainant had demanded loan of Rs.1 lakh to pay the same to the private lenders. Considering the financial capacity of the complainant on 29.08.2009, the bank sanctioned loan of Rs.80,000/-. On 8.9.2009, Rs.80,000/-was transferred to the bank account of the complainant, however, the complainant kept on insisting for sanction of Rs.1 lakh loan and on subsequent occasion along with his criminal associates, complainant came to the branch in drunken condition and committed abuse and other misdemeanor against the bank employees. Being frustrated, the complainant filed a false complaint with the ACB on 10.09.2009 and accordingly, trap was set on 14.9.2009. Learned Senior Counsel contends that no work of the complainant was pending with the appellant on the date of trap.

Learned senior counsel next contends that there is complete lack of evidence on demand of any graft by the appellant. Learne