1. This appeal is preferred by the accused-appellant, Darshan Lal, against the judgement and order dated 28-02-1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000/- in proof of offences committed under section 5(2) P.C. Act, 2006 read with section 161 RPC, and in the event of default in payment of fine of Rs 1000/- to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.

2. Mr. Ajay Abrol, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that the prosecution in order to succeed must show first that there was a demand of bribe by the appellant and the acceptance of the bribe money from the complainant. His further submission is that in the absence of proof of either of these ingredients, it would entail the failure of the prosecution case. In addition to this, it was urged that when a reference is made to the statement of the complainant and the FIR lodged by him, it is significant to point out that the name of the accused-appellant has not been indicated in the complaint to have demanded the bribe money and its receipt by him for entertaining the admission Form. There is no corroboration to the statement of the complainant with regard to the demand and receipt of the bribe money by the accused-appellant. The sole statement is at variance with the FIR and the same remains uncorroborated by any independent witness in material particulars and is not qualitative and sufficient to record the conviction of the accused-appellant.

3. Another argument was addressed that even the Investigating Officer, after recording the statement of the witnesses with regard to other incriminating circumstances, has unambiguously stated that no case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 has been disclosed against the accused-appellant. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and held the accused guilty without any legal evidence which could not be read against the appellant and, thus, appeal deserves to be allowed conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused-appellant quashed and set aside. Whereas, Mr. B. S. Slathia, learned AAG appearing for the State, on the other hand, contended that the complainant who lodged the FIR is a witness of sterling character, his evidence alone is sufficient to prove essential ingredients of the offence, viz., demand and acceptance of the bribe money which stood further corroborated by the evidence of handwriting expert and another witness from whom he borrowed Rs. 100/- to be given as bribe to the accused-appellant for entertaining his admission Form for appearing in the Bi-annual Matriculation Examination of 1982. He further submitted that there was overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond hilt.

4. The case has been examined with erudite assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in the light of the facts as they exist on the file as well as on the basis of evidence both oral and documentary. I have also considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties in extenso.

5. The sheet anchor of the case that stems out from the record may, in brief, be noticed:-

One Tarseem Lal, complainant, had to appear in the bi-annual Matriculation examination of 1982 to be conducted by the Board of School Education (hereinafter referred to as the `Board). He had got his admission Form filled in and deposited a fee of Rs. 53/- in the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Branch, R.S.Pura in the name of Chairman, of the Board. He also got his admission Form attested from the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, R.S.Pura, and went to the Board Office at Jammu for the deposit of the admission Form. The complainant came in contact with the accused-appellant in the Board who was dealing with the entertainment of the admission Forms on 21st September, 1982. An amount of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document