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 :

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No.1, Udaipur, in Special Sessions Case No.05/2011 (CIS No.55/2014) by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo one year SI along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Baleshwar lodged a report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB Banswara stating inter-alia that he applied for sanction of personal loan before the Bank of Baroda, Branch Paloda, Banswara in the month of August, 2009, where Shri B.L. Meena was posted as Manager and for sanction of Rs.1 lac personal loan, he demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification. The complainant also talked to the Bank clerk Ramniwas (present appellant), who also demanded the same amount. Upon this complaint, verification of demand was got done on 10.09.2009 from the appellant and on 11.09.2009 from Babu Lal Meena, co-accused. Thereafter, on 14.09.2009, a trap was arranged and the graft money of Rs.3,000/- was recovered from the drawer of the table of co- accused B.L. Meena. The co-accused explained to the trap officers that the said amount was given by the complainant towards processnig fee. However, no recovery was made from the present appellant during the trap and he was implicated in this case on the basis of alleged demand.

3. After thorough investigation, challan was filed against the appellant as well as co-accused Babulal. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of PC Act and Section 120B IPC. The accused persons including the appellant denied the same and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the appellant were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined, but certain documents were exhibited by the accused persons.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 01.12.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 7 of PC Act and co-accused Babu Lal for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of PC Act. Hence, this criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant against his conviction.

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 7 of PC Act and not for offence under Section 13 of the Act. Counsel submits that the only basis of conviction of the appellant is the alleged transcription report (Ex-P/2). From the bare perusal of the fard transcription, it is apparent that no work was pending with the appellant and no specific demand was raised by the appellant for any work. Counsel submits that even the alleged recovery of Rs.3,000/- was made from co-accused Babulal and not from the present appellant. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence was committed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Act, more particularly when neither the appellant was authorized to sanction the loan, nor any work was pending with him, nor any demand was raised by him, nor any amount was accepted by him. But all these aspects of the matter were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment and wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 7 of the Act. Counsel further submits that the criminal appeal i.e. SB Cr. Appeal No.2556/2023, filed by the main accused Babu Lal, from whom recovery of Rs.3,000/- was made, has already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2024 while setting aside his conviction and sentence passed by the tria