The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1.Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 03.02.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Udaipur, in Sessions Case No.58/2014 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo six months SI along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.2013 complainant Nathu Lal (PW-2) filed a written report (Ex-P/1) before the Addl. SP, ACB Outpost Rajsamand alleging inter alia that when he went to the office of A.En. Railmagra for depositing the amount of demand notice issued to him for electricity connection to his agricultural land, he was asked to contact Sh. Kamal Meena, J.En Gilund. When the complainant reached out to Kamal Meena, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000-3000/- for issuing electricity meter. On the basis of complaint, verification of demand was made by the ACB and thereafter, a trap was arranged.

3. As per prosecution, though a trap was planned but appellant became suspicious and did not accept the illegal gratification. Later on, the accused sent a message through his friends that he made a mistake and requested not to initiate any proceedings against him. However, on the basis of illegal demand, a prima facie case was found against the accused-appellant and therefore, FIR was registered against him and investigation was commended.

4. After thorough investigation, challan was filed against the appellant. Thereafter, the trial court framed charge for offences under Section 7 of PC Act against the appellant. The accused appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined, but certain documents were exhibited by the accused appellant.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 03.02.2020 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 7 of PC Act. Hence, this criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant against his conviction.

7. The counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court erred in law by convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as there is no reliable material or evidence on record to substantiate his conviction. Counsel contends that, according to the complaint (Ex-P/1), the complainant visited the office of A.En. Railmagra, where he was instructed to meet Kamal Meena, J.En., Gilund (the present appellant). The complainant further asserts that approximately 10-15 days prior to this meeting, the appellant had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000-3,000. Counsel further submits that the trial court placed reliance on the transcript (Ex-P/2) for convicting the appellant; however, the transcript fails to demonstrate that any work was pending with the appellant. Moreover, according to the prosecution's case, the appellant neither accepted any money nor engaged in any conversation with the complainant. As such, it is evident that no illegal gratification was recovered from the appellant’s possession.

8. Counsel also points out that the complainant, who testified as PW-2, clearly stated that when he visited the office of A.En., two individuals were present, one of whom was the appellant. The complainant testified that the second individual demanded Rs. 2,500 for a connection. However, this second individual was not identified by the complainant, nor was any complaint filed against him. Furthermore, the complaint made no mention of this individual. Subsequently, the trial court declared the complainant (PW-2) hostile. In his