The central legal point established in the judgment is that demand of illegal gratification is a crucial element for convicting an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient without reliable evidence of demand and acceptance.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - Aggrieved of conviction in FIR No. 40 dated 17.7.2000 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short the Act) registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar, Surinder Kumar (appellant) is in appeal.

2. The facts as set up by the prosecution are that on 17.7.2001, a complaint was made by Sarvesh Bharti. He stated that he was dealing with the advertisement concerning Punjab Technical University (for short' the University') in the newspapers 'Punjab Kesri' and 'Jagbani' and rest of the newspapers were being dealt with by other advertising agencies. On 13.7.2001, the complainant met the appellant posted as PA to Vice Chancellor of the University (for short, 'VC') and requested for release of advertisement for 'Daily Ajit' and 'Tribune Group' newspapers. The appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification and the deal was struck for Rs.5,000/-. On the complaint, trap was laid. Ten notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- were laced with Phenolphthalein Powder. Ganga Baksh who went along with the complainant to the Vigilance Bureau office was made the shadow witness. Samittar Singh and Gobind Singh were the official witnesses. After instructing the complainant and the shadow witness, the raiding party reached the University. On receiving signal from the shadow witness, the raiding party went to the spot and secured the appellant from both hands. The laced currency was recovered from the left side pocket of the shirt of the appellant. On washing of his hands and pocket of the shirt with Sodium Carbonate solution, the colour turned pink. On receiving sanction, charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act were framed.

3. The prosecution to support its case examined nine witnesses. (From the perusal of record, it is forthcoming that two prosecution witnesses were numbered as PW7).

4. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded false implication. Further that he was working as a Stenographer with the VC, the complainant had approached him for clearing his bills but he was informed that appellant had no concern with Accounts Branch and the complainant got annoyed. Further that the tainted currency was being forcibly put in his pocket and when he resisted, the complainant caught hold of him from his hands. It was further stated that he was not authorised to release advertisement in any newspaper.

5. The trial court considered that though Samittar Singh, official witness was declared hostile but the complainant and the other prosecution witness supported the case of prosecution and rejecting the defence of the appellant, convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act vide judgment dated 25.2.2005 and vide order of even date was sentenced as under:

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The shadow witness PW7-Ganga Baksh had not supported the case of prosecution and the official witness PW4-Samittar Singh was declared hostile. It is further argued that from the deposition of PW7- J. S. Nagra, it was evident that the appellant had no authority to release advertisement and that the complainant was not having the authorised agency to book advertisement for 'Tribune Group' and 'Daily Ajit'. It is a case of false implication as payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- of the complainant was stuck with the University. It is further argued that there are variations in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses