The prosecution failed to prove the demand or acceptance of bribes, and the conviction was based on inadmissible evidence, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the criminal appeals arose out of one common judgment, hence, the same are being decided together by a common judgment.

2. By filing two separate criminal appeals under section 374 (2) CrPC, the accused appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Alwar (for short 'the learned trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.34/2015, 'State Vs. Brijesh Kumar Meena & Anr.', whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:-

Accused appellant- Brijesh Kumar Meena U/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

Two years imprisonment and Rs.10,000/- as a fine and in default of payment the accused appellant has been directed to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment.

U/s. 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

Four years imprisonment and Rs.20,000/- as a fine and in default of payment the accused appellant has been directed to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment.

U/s. 220 IPC:

Five years imprisonment and Rs.25,000/- as a fine and in default of payment the accused appellant has been directed to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.

U/s. 392 read with section 120B IPC:

Five years imprisonment and Rs.25,000/- as a fine and in default of payment the accused appellant has been directed to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.

Accused-appellant- Jakir U/s. 392 read with section 120B IPC:

Five years imprisonment and Rs.25,000/- as a fine and in default of payment the accused appellant has been directed to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.

U/s. 220 read with section 120B IPC:

Five years imprisonment and Rs.25,000/- as a fine and in default of payment the accused appellant has been directed to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.

U/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120B IPC:

Two years imprisonment and Rs.10,000/- as a fine and in default of payment the accused appellant has been directed to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment.

U/s. 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

Four years imprisonment and Rs.20,000/- as a fine and in default of payment the accused appellant has been directed to further undergo four months additional simple imprisonment.

Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 04.09.2012 complainant Lalit Kishore (PW16) along-with his father Giriraj Prasad Meena (PW21) submitted a written report (Ex.P8) in the ACB Chowki, Alwar as under:-

On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P8), a criminal case was registered at No.361/2012.

4. The police after investigation submitted the charge- sheet against the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act of

1988 and sections 220 and 392 IPC, in the competent Court.

5. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellant- Brijesh Kumar Meena for the offences punishable under sections 7,13(1)(d) and section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and sections 220 and 392 read with section 120B IPC and against accused appellant- Jakir for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and sections 220 and 392 IPC; wherein they denied all the charges and opted for trial.

6. From the prosecution side, the statements of 40 witnesses were recorded and certain documents were exhibited.

7. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 CrPC. The accused appellants in their statements have denied the allegations levelled against them and deposed that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.

8. The learned trial court vide its impugned judgment dated 23.09.2019 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the