IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of the complainant's testimony does not invalidate the prosecution's case if demand and acceptance of bribes are established through other evidence.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

1.1 Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the common judgment of conviction and sentence passed in connection with Vigilance (Spl.) Case No. 16 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Complainant is Sunil Kumar Munda, who had been awarded a work contract of Rs. 69,800/- under Gram Shamridhi Yojana in Chandil Block in the year 2002 for laying of bricks in village Balidih of District Saraikella, Kharsawan. After the completion of the work he received payment of Rs. 50,000/- by different cheques and also got wheat and rice of worth Rs. 9,000/-. It is alleged that for clearing the bill for release of balance amount, Assistant Engineer-Arun Kumar and Junior Engineer-Ram Janam Sharma demanded Rs. 3,500/- each i.e. 5%-5% commission on the said amount.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi deputed police inspector i.e. Diwa Shankar Prasad to verify the complaint and submit his report. He accordingly verified the matter and found the allegation true and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. Thereafter, on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Ranchi, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 14 of 2003 was lodged and the Dy. S.P. namely, R.K. Dhan was appointed as I.O. of the case.

4. A trap team was constituted, and on 07.05.2003, after completing the pre-trap formalities, trap was laid on 08.05.2003 in the quarters of both the appellants situated in Chandil Block. The trap was first laid in the official quarter of Ramjanam Sharma, Junior Engineer and then in the house Arun Kumar, Assistant Engineer. Both of them were apprehended red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 3,500 each tendered by the appellant in the presence of shadow witness.

5. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellants and they were put on trial under these sections.

6. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant documents were adduced into evidence, marked as exhibits Nos. 1-10 and X as well as material exhibits have also been proved.

7. After prosecution evidence, statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defense is of innocence and false implication.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that there are serious infirmities in the prosecution case which renders the judgment of conviction unsustainable. Complainant has not been examined, and the complaint has been proved formally proved by a witness who was not the author of the document. It is argued that in the absence of proof of demand by the complainant, the evidence of proof of demand by other witnesses is not sufficient to prove the charges under Section 7 and 13(2) of the P.C Act. Prove of demand by the shadow witness or the I.O. will not be sufficient. Reliance is placed on A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 wherein it has been held:

17. Pertinently, Manaf (the complainant) has not been tendered in evidence by the prosecution. PW-12 (IO) in his entire deposition has not stated a word as to why Manaf was not examined or why it was not possible to tender him in evidence. In the absence of examination of the complainant, there is no substantive evidence to prove the factum of demand.

As far as the impact of non-examination of the complainant, law has now been settled that mere non-examination of a complainant will not be fatal to the prosecution, if demand and acceptance is proved by other evidences on record. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731:

90. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this