The necessity of proving demand and acceptance for conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the inadmissibility of presumption under Section 20 for Section 13(1)(d), and the requirement of proving acceptance for drawing presumption under Section 20.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - Aggrieved of conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') in FIR No. 28 dated 30.6.2003, under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act, registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Satbir Singh (appellant) is in appeal.

2. The relevant facts as per the prosecution are that Raj Pal made a complaint on 30.6.2003 to Inspector Vigilance, Kaithal. He narrated that he is engaged in selling milk and had applied loan under Prime Minister Employment Scheme (Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojna). The papers were filed in the office of District Industries Centre, Kaithal. The appellant posted as a Clerk informed that only on his clearing the interview the loan would be sanctioned and for this purpose, Rs. 2,000/- bribe was demanded. The deal was struck for Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 700/- were paid. On complaint, a trap was laid. Rajbir Singh, Tehsildar was the Gazetted officer for the trap and Abhey Ram Constable was appointed as a shadow witness. Three currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- were laced with Phenolphthalein Powder and initialled. After giving instructions to the shadow witness and the complainant, the raiding party proceeded towards the office of the appellant. On receiving signal from the shadow witness, the appellant was apprehended and laced currency notes were recovered from the right pocket of his pant. On washing of the hands of the appellant and pocket of his pant with Sodium Carbonate solution, the colour turned light pink. On receiving the sanction to prosecute, charges were framed.

3. The prosecution to support its case examined eleven witnesses.

4. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded innocence and stated that he had not made demand of illegal gratification and denied that recovery was made from him.

5. In his defence he examined two witnesses.

6. The trial court considering that PW9 to PW11 had supported the case of the prosecution; the recovery was made from the appellant; on washing of the hands and pocket of the pant of the appellant, the colour of solution turned pink and drawing presumption under Section 20 of the Act against the appellant, convicted him vide judgment dated 24.8.2005 and vide order of even date, sentenced him as under:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. He further submits that the complainant was declared hostile. Reliances is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, 2016(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 806.

8. Learned counsel for the State defends the impugned judgment. He submits that the official witnesses supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that the appellant has given no explanation with regard to the possession of tainted currency.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. The law is well-settled that for conviction under Section 7 of the Act demand and acceptance are sine qua non. Reference is made to the decisions of Supreme Court in K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 195 and Krishan Chander's case (Supra).

11. In N. Sunkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 797, the Supreme Court held that presumption under Section 20 of the Act is not available under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.

12. In B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 410, the Supreme Court held that for drawing presumption under Section 20 of the Act, ac