Demonstrating demand for a bribe is essential to prove offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) -

The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused (hereinafter referred to as Appellant), challenging the judgment dated 13.05.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Bathinda whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows:-

"to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.6,000/-, in default thereof R.I. for six months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ."

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell revolves around the allegation that on 8th of March, 2005, the appellant, who was serving as Patwari, demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- from the complainant, Jagsir Singh, for entering the mutation of redemption of mortgage in the revenue records.

3. The complainant, Jagsir Singh, had previously mortgaged his land measuring 23 Kanals and 6 Marlas to secure a loan from the bank. Upon repayment of the loan on 22nd of February, 2005, the bank issued "No Objection Certificates" (Exhibit PN and Exhibit PO). When the complainant approached the appellant to record the mutation of redemption, the appellant initially delayed the process and, on 07.03.2005, demanded Rs. 1000/- as a bribe, which was later negotiated to Rs.600/-.

4. Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the Vigilance Bureau, leading to a trap being laid on 08.03.2005, under the supervision of DSP Ashutosh (PW-11). A trap team was constituted, and the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder (hereinafter referred to as powder') were recovered from the right pocket of the coat worn by the appellant, during the raid.

5. On the basis of the material on record and after obtaining the requisite sanction Exhibit P-M from the District Collector, Bathinda, challan was presented in the Court. The appellant was charged for offence under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act') to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the complainant, who was examined as PW-9, Jaspal Singh shadow witness appeared as PW-10 and Investigating Officer DSP Ashutosh as PW-11.

6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe. He contended that the recovered money from him constituted Government fees for preparing copies of Jamabandies and Khasra Girdwaries. He further claimed discrepancies in the No Due Certificates' (Exhibits PN and PO) given by the bank, which prevented him from completing the mutation. To support his defence, the appellant examined DW-1, Gurjant Singh, Revenue Patwari Halqa Tungwali, who testified about the alleged discrepancies and the fees receipt entries in the register (Exhibit DE).

7. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the material on record and evidence led, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which already stands reproduced in the earlier part of this order.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that :

(i) the prosecution failed to reconcile the discrepancies between Exhibit-PN Exhibit-PO and the revenue records;

(ii) Rs. 600 recovered from the appellant was not a bribe but Government fees for preparing the requested documents, which were duly recorded in the fees register Exhibit DE; and

(iii) the learned trial Court erred in interpreting the evidence, ignoring key inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the case of the prosecution.

9. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, argued that the conviction of the appellant was supporte