The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant for a conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

S.L. Kochar, J.

1. The Appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 9/12/2005 passed by learned Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) and 1st Additional Sessions judge, Dewas in Special Case No. 05/2002, thereby convicted the Appellant under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), and sentenced him to RI for one year with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall to suffer additional RI for three months.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as unfolded before the trial Court is that complainant Ramakant Potdar was Principal of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Nagda, Distt. Dewas, at that time he was suspended, on charge of not taking confidential material of examination on 09.03.2001. He received chargesheet on 17.04.2001. Shri Shivraj Tyagi was the Block Education Officer of Dewas and complainant was required to send his reply to the chargesheet to Block Education Officer Shri Tyagi. Complainant met Mr. Tyagi and Mr. Tyagi demanded Rs. 15,000/- for helping and to save him from demotion, ultimately it was settled for 8,000/- rupees. Complainant was not willing to give bribe to Mr. Tyagi, therefore, submitted a complaint on 20.04.2001 in Lokayukta office. In Lokayukta office after completion of required procedure for trap, Tyagi was trapped on 21.04.2001.

3. On inquiry Tyagi disclosed before the trap party that Appellant Distt. Education Officer Shri Ghanshyam Narayan Dubey had demanded this amount and he accepted the bribe for Appellant Shri Dubey. On the basis of this disclosure by Shri Tyagi on the spot, complainant submitted one more application, that was against Shri Dubey to Lokayukta police and complainant brought Rs. 8,000/- from his house. Thereafter, procedure for conducting trap was completed by noting down number of notes, and phenolphthalein powder could not be used because it was not available at that moment. The trap party reached at the house of Appellant Shri Dubey. Offices of Lokayukta provided a tape to complainant with instruction that at the time of payment of bribe he should use this tape for recording conversation between him and Shri Dubey. Complainant went inside the house of Shri Dubey and paid Rs. 8,000/- to him. Shri Dubey after taking amount, kept the same in right pocket of the trouser and assured the complainant for his continue posting at Nagda. After passing bribe money to Appellant, complainant gave signal, on which members of the trap party reached inside the house and caught hold the hands of Shri Dubey. Officers of lokayukta disclosed their identity, thereafter conducted the proceeding of seizure of currency notes. On completion of all proceeding regarding recovery of notes, seizure of tape recorder with cassette and preparation of spot map, Appellant was arrested. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses for proving the charge and after obtaining sanction to prosecute Shri Dubey, vide Ex.P/13, filed the charge sheet for commission of offences under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the Act") 1988.

4. Appellant refuted the charges, therefore, put to trial. He has not examined any witness in his defence. Learned trial Court after examining the prosecution witnesses and hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned hereinabove.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that for conviction of the Appellant under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, the prosecution is mandatory required to establish demand of bribe amount which is not proved and learned trial Court has given specific finding in this regard in paragraph-16 of the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments passed in cases of A. Subair v. State of Kerala 2009 CRI.L.J. 3450, Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat 2002 CRI.L. J. 2787 and this H