Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) PC Act; mere recovery insufficient without proof, especially absent pending official work & with hostile shadow witness & procedural contradictions.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.3.2012 and order of sentence dated 2.4.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu & Lahaul Spiti, Districts at Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted and sentenced as under: -

(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). It was asserted that Kewal Ram, the father of the informant, Murat Ram (PW1), had died. He had executed a Will in favour of the informant. An entry of mutation was to be recorded in the informant’s name in the revenue record. Informant’s father has also deposited some amount in the Central Bank of India, Bhuntar, and the informant required a legal heirs certificate from the Revenue Department. The informant went to Patwari (accused) on 21.11.2008 for recording the entry in the revenue record and getting the legal heirs certificate. The accused demanded Rs.200/- for himself, Rs.200/- for Kanungo and Rs.500/- for Naib Tehsildar; however, the informant could only pay Rs.200/- for Patwari and Rs.200/- for Kanungo. He promised to pay the remaining amount after borrowing it from someone. The accused told the informant that his work could not be done without money. The informant repeatedly visited the accused, but the accused put off the matter on one pretext or another. He demanded Rs.600/- and Rs.700/- to complete the work. The informant collected Rs.600/- to pay to the accused, but he did not want to pay any money to the accused. Hence, he visited the Police Station with his friend Rajiv Kumar (PW2) and reported the incident to the police.

3. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A). Inspector Sushila (PW16) commenced the investigation. She demonstrated the functioning of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate powder to the informant and his friend, Rajiv Kumar. She prepared a memo (Ex.PW1/B). The informant produced six currency notes, each worth Rs.100/-. Inspector Sushila (PW16) recorded the serial number of the currency notes in the memo (Ex.PW1/C). She smeared currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and handed them over to the informant. She directed the informant to hand over the currency notes to the accused on demand and not to shake hands with anyone. Rajiv Kumar was associated as the shadow witness, and he was directed to give a signal to the police after the accused had accepted the bribe. The police party, the informant and the witness went to the spot in a police vehicle. The police constables were directed to hide themselves near the spot and inform th