The absence of evidence proving demand and acceptance of a bribe is critical for conviction under corruption laws.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 10.09.1985 passed by learned Special Judge ACD Cases, Jaipur whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced as under:-

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. As per story of the prosecution, Subhash Chand Jain submitted a written report (Ex.P-2) to Additional S.P., ACP Kota alleging there in that his representative Rajendra Sharma telephoned him from Deoli that employees of Commercial Taxes Department, Octroi Post Deoli had stopped his two trucks of fertilizer and the Incharge of said Octroi Post demanded Rs.400/-as bribe. He did not want to pay the bribe, so, trap proceedings were conducted and Rs.400/- were recovered from the table of the appellant. Chargesheet was filed, cognizance was taken and after hearing the arguments, charges were framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act, 1947.

4. Accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed the trial.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant examined two witnesses in his defence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He further submitted that the learned trial court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Witness Ramsingh was not produced by the prosecution and witnesses Kanhaiya Lal and Rajendra Kumar did not support the prosecution story. He further submitted that the statement of witnesses are contradictory, therefore no reliance can be placed on them. He further submits that prosecution sanction was not proved by cogent evidence and there is no evidence that appellant had ever demanded the amount of bribe from Ramsingh. He further submitted that mere recovery of tainted amount, offence against the appellant under Prevention of Corruption Act could not be proved. So, the appellant be acquitted.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in Criminal Appeal No.31/2009, decided on 14.09.2015.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that trial court rightly convicted the appellant. So, the appeal be dismissed.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

10. It is an admitted position that prosecution witnesses Kanhaiya Lal and Rajendra Kumar have not supported the prosecution story. Driver-Ramsingh from whom alleged bribe was demanded, was not examined by the prosecution. Mere recovery of the tainted amount, did not prove the offence under Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act.

11. In my considered opinion, prosecution had miserably failed to prove demand and acceptance by the appellant. So, learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act, 1947. Hence, the judgment of the learned trial court deserves to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial court date