The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to follow proper procedure and inconsistencies in witness statements can lead to adverse inferences.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code read with section 27 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 23.01.2020 and order of conviction dated 24.01.2020 passed in criminal case no. 58/2003 (The State of UP Vs. Sameer Singh) passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Court no. 5, Lucknow convicting the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-imposed under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-under section 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) PC Act, 1988, with default provision in each of the offences.

2. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Prosecution case is that a complaint was made by the complainant Kishan against appellant Sameer Singh that for the purpose of constructing house under Indira Awas Yojna, out of the Government approved grant of Rs. 10,000/-each to the complainant, wife of Mahadev of the village, Rs. 20,000/-each to the wife of Teji and wife of Avatar, an amount of Rs. 3000/-cheque is due which is to be given to all the four beneficiaries from block Mohanlal Ganj through Secretary Sameer Singh and for this purpose, on 13.03.2002, the complainant, Avataar and Mahadev went to the photostat shop of Village Pradhan Bachha Babu at Mohanlal Ganj where Sameer Singh, Secretary Gram Pradhan came around 11’O clock and told them that if they want the remaining cheque of Rs. 3000/-each, then by noon of 15.03.2002, they will have to bring Rs. 200/-each and collectively pay him as a bribe, thereafter, he will provide them the cheques. He further said that he has been transferred and if they have to take the remaining amount, then come with Rs. 800/-in the office; otherwise he does not know and they will not be given cheques. Thus, the secretary deliberately with a view to obtain bribe is delaying the cheques of the complainant and other beneficiaries.

It is further alleged that he and his companions (other beneficiaries) do not want to give bribe to Sameer Singh, but want to get him caught red handed. The complainant asked each one of them to bring Rs. 200/-and collect Rs. 800/-along with them. A complaint to that effect was given by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, UP Vigilance Department, Lucknow, Sector Lucknow, consequent to which, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Lucknow recommended for trap action and thereafter a trap team was constituted. Thereafter, the complainant was sent to block Mohanlal Ganj where after seeing the complainant, the Secretary Sameer Singh slowed his Hero Puch vehicle and stopped it after entering into the gate. He asked the complainant whether he has brought the agreed amount as told by him, whereupon he said that as told by him, he has brought Rs. 800/-from all the beneficiaries. While sitting on Hero Puch, he demanded the amount, upon this, the complainant Shri Kishan took money from the left pocket of his shirt which was taken by him by his left hand and started counting by both hands. After seeing, listening and hearing the conversation, giving and taking bribe, the trap team arrested accused Sameer Singh with Rs. 800/-.

The recovery memo was prepared on the basis of recovered notes from the arrested accused and an FIR was registered by the constable moharrir at fourteen hours. Entry in the general diary was also made at rapat no. 13 at the same time i.e. 1400 hours. Gulam Akbar was appointed as investigating officer who took the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the complainant, and prepared the site plan and after finding prima facie offence against the accused/appellant Sameer Singh, he filed charge sheet against the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 3(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The prosecution in support of its case has produced the following w