Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money does not suffice without evidence of demand.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1. Heard Sri Nandit Srivastava Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shahla Zubair and Sri Pranjal Krishna Advocates, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 read with Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No. 1, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2008 arising out of RC No. 0062008A0016/2008 under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay Rs.15,000/- as fine. In case of failure to pay fine, the appellant would have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for an additional period of six months. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. On 16.10.2008 Sri. Gayabudh Singh son of Sri. Surya Lal Singh gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., alleging that his father has taken a Kisan Credit Card loan of Rs.40,000/- and after he had deposited Rs.11,000/- towards repayment of the loan, the loan amount was waived off by the Government. The appellant, who was the Manager of Sarva U. P. Gramin Bank, had demanded Rs.3,000/- for issuing a no-dues certificate to his father. On the same date, the Superintendent of police made an endorsement that the complaint seems to be genuine and upon his order, an F.I.R. bearing RC No. 0062008A0016/2008 under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 16.10.2008 itself.

4. A trap was laid on 17.10.2008. Two independent witnesses accompanied the trap team. The team members and a witness Dr. Harish Chandra Arya stayed outside the Bank’s branch whereas the complainant Gayabudh Singh and the shadow witnesses Sri. Vikas Bharti went inside the Bank. After sometime, Sri. Vikas Bharti came outside and gave a signal, whereupon the trap team and the other independent witnesses went inside the Bank and they caught the appellant red handed. At the instruction of the trap laying officer, the independent witnesses Dr. Harish Chandra Arya recovered Rs.2,500/- kept inside a passbook in the drawer of the appellant’s office table.

5. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the complainant Gayabudh Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who supported the prosecution case. The statement of one Jagdish Singh was recorded on 17.11.2008. He stated that the complainant did not do any work without taking bribe and the people of the area were very happy on the day the appellant was caught.

6. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of the shadow witness Sri. Vikas Bharti on 10.11.2008 and he stated that he had accompanied the complainant inside the bank, but he had not gone inside the cabin of the appellant. 5-6 persons were present inside the appellant’s cabin but they declined to become witnesses in the case. The complainant went near the appellant, he and the appellant talked to each other for about 2 minutes in low voices and the shadow witness could not hear the conversation. Thereafter the complainant took out the money from his upper pocket and passbook from his lower pocket, kept the money in the passbook and handed it to the appellant. The appellant took the passbook in his right hand, opened the pa