The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conviction, emphasizing that mere acceptance of tainted money is insufficient without evidence of demand.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.87 of 1999, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 07.10.1996, one Sarat Kumar Rout, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, presented a written report before the O.I.C., Vigilance Police Station, Cuttack Division, inter alia, alleging therein that, on 28.09.1996, he had taken his son and daughter to the hospital for their treatment. The appellant, after examining both the children, demanded Rs.20/- each and the complainant protested to the same, but eventually, paid the amount. Subsequently, when the complainant further wanted to take his daughter for treatment, the appellant again demanded Rs.20/- to prescribe medicines. Being aggrieved, the complainant presented the written report before the Inspector of Vigilance, Bhubaneswar. After registration of the F.I.R., as per the direction of the S.P., Vigilance, Cuttack Division, a legal trap was arranged and after giving demonstration, report was prepared. The trap was successful, the appellant was caught red-handed and subsequently he was arrested. Thereafter, the detection report was prepared. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) and Section 7 of the P.C. Act against the appellant.

3. During the trial, the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined seven witnesses, including the complainant as P.W.2, and exhibited 16 documents. On the other hand, the defence presented a plea of complete denial, false implication, and examined three witnesses in support of his defence.

4. Out of 7 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 was the Magisterial witness, who accompanied the raiding party to the hospital. P.W.2 was the complainant, P.W.3 was the overhearing witness, and P.W.4 was the witness to prove the writing and signature of the accused in the prescription. P.W.6 was the Scientific Officer and P.W.7 was the I.O. of the case.

5. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, found that the evidence of P.W.3, the over-hearing witness, got corroborated with the testimony of P.W.2, the complainant, with respect to the demand of the bribe by the accused. Additionally, the evidence of P.W.7, the I.O., proved the recovery of the tainted money from the accused. Moreover, the defence failed to show that the amount of Rs.20/- was a legal remuneration that the appellant was entitled to receive.

6. The learned trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt with respect to the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, and thereby sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one month. However, due to lack of relevant evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) read with (2) of the P.C.Act.

7. PW.1 and P.W.3 being the magisterial witness and the over- hearing