The essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - This appeal is directed against conviction and sentence of Parveen Kumar (appellant) vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2004, in case of FIR No. 76 dated 10.3.2002, under Sections, 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Hasanpur.

Facts

2. As per the case of the prosecution, Zile Singh (complainant) gave an application on 10.3.2002. The allegations were that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.2500/- for correction of Khasra Girdawari regarding redemption of the mortgaged land of the father of the complainant. A trap was laid, five notes each of denomination Rs.500/- were initialled and laced with Phenolphthalein power. SI-Krishan Kumar was deputed as shadow witness. He was instructed to accompany the complainant and to give signal to the raiding party on passing of the bribe to the appellant. On signal from the shadow witness at about 2.15 P.M., the appellant was apprehended sitting on a motor cycle. From a purse kept in pocket of his pant, laced currency notes were recovered. On washing the hand and pocket of pant of the appellant, the colour of solution turned pink. After grant of sanction the challan was filed, charges framed, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

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

4. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant stated that it is a case of false implication. He was forcibly lifted from his residence along with motor cycle and the case was foisted upon him while sitting in the police station.

5. In defence, the appellant examined five witnesses.

6. The trial court taking into consideration that:-

(1) The Jamabandi Ex.PM for the year 1995-96 produced showed land of Duli Chand recorded as mortgaged in favour of Bhajan Lal and Gobind Singh and it continued till October, 2001 whereas mortgage was redeemed on 1.6.1989;

(2) the complaiant approached the appellant for correction of Khasra Girdawari cannot be doubted;

(3) as per deposition of Rohtas Singh-DSP illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant for correcting the revenue entries;

(4) tainted currency was recovered from the appellant;

(5) non supporting of the case of prosecution by the complainant was not fatal, as his presence was proved from his signatures on memos Ex.PG and Ex.PH by which the complainant gave notes and those were returned after applying Phenolphthalein Powder;

(6) presumption under Section 20 of the Act was drawn against the appellant and there was valid sanction to prosecute, convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act vide judgment dated 29.11.2004 and vide order of even date was sentenced as under:

Contentions

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant has not supported the version of prosecution. The submission is that the shadow witness had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. He further submits that there was no evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The contention is that the appellant was picked from home and he was falsely implicated.

8. Learned counsel for the State defends the impugned judgment.

He submits that the official witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the defence put forth by the appellant was not believable and reliance was placed upon the statements made by DW2-Poonam (wife of the appellant) who is an interested witness.

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