IMPORTANT POINT
The essential elements of proving corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act include establishing a clear demand for illegal gratification and its subsequent acceptance by the public servant.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.S.G.I for the respondent—C.B.I.

2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant against impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 24th March, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.5A/90D, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 each and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts leading to this criminal appeal are that a complaint was lodged by the complainant Rajeshwar Mistry with these allegations that Ram Kumar Singh, Cashier, Balihari Colliery, BCCL had made a demand of Rs.400/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for releasing his pay for the month of February, 1990 which had been unauthorizedly held up by him and also for releasing salary of complainant regularly in time for future. On this written complaint, the office of CBI Branch, Dhanbad verified it and in his verification report dated 10th April, 1990 confirmed the allegations as made in the written complaint as genuine and correct. During course of investigation, it was also alleged that it was one of the duties of the accused Ram Kumar Singh in capacity of Cashier Balihari Colliery to disburse salary of labourers but the accused unauthorizedly held up the salary with the unauthorized help of J.N. Dubey, the then Clerk of Balihari Colliery. Arrangement was made to lay a trap and to apprehend the accused red handed while accepting illegal gratification for the complainant. All the pre-trap formalities were observed and Sri S.K. Chakerborty, Assistant Commissioner, Regiional Office, CMPF, Dhanbad and M.P. Singh UDC, Legal Section, CMPF, Dhanbad associated with the raiding party in capacity of independent witnesses. The raiding party reached to the office of the accused at Balihari Colliery and all the raiding party took their position around the office room of the accused Ram Kumar Singh, who was sitting on a chair behind his office table. Seeing the complainant, the accused after a brief conversation which was heard by the witnesses as well as members of the raiding party, demanded and accepted the tainted money amounting to Rs.400/- with his right hand and kept the same in his left hand side upper pocket of his shirt. The transaction was also seen by the witnesses as well as members of the raiding party and after the complainant gave the fixed signal by rubbing his forehead with towel, the raiding party rushed into the office room of the accused and the accused was challenged. The accused Ram Kumar Singh turned pale and could not offer any explanation. The tainted money amounting to Rs.400/- was recovered from the left hand side upper pocket of the shirt of the accused and the number and denominations of the 8 G.C. notes of Rs.50/- tallied with the same given in the preliminary memorandum. The accused was taken into police custody. The right hand fingures of the accused were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and the milky solution immediately turned pink which was a positive evidence that the accused had accepted the tainted money with his right hand. When the linings of the upper left side pocket of the shirt of the accused was washed in another solution of sodium carbonate, the same also turned pink. The hand wash, the pocket wash and the tainted money and the shirt were kept in separate bottle and covered respectively and the same were sealed and signed by all the witnesses including the complainant. After concludin