The necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the insufficiency of mere recovery of money to establish guilt.

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 6/11/2012 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur in Special Case No.12/2010, whereby the present appellant has been convicted along with other accused R.C.Mishra and is sentenced as under:

Conviction u/s Sentence Default clause

7 of Prevention of Corruption Act RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- RI for three months

13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- RI for one month

120-B of IPC RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- RI for one month

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.4.2009 a complaint was filed by the complainant Rakesh Kumar Tiwari (PW-6) before the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI), Jabalpur wherein it was alleged that he is an authorised officer of M/s Rohit Coal Depot, which is registered with Northern Coal-fields Limited (NCL) to participate in the coal auction and in one such auction they had purchased 1000 metric tons of coal. It is further stated by the complainant that the coal, which is to be lifted, is required to be weighed on the weigh bridge, which is being supervised by the Sales Manager R.C. Mishra who is asking for a bribe of Rs.50,000/- at the rate of Rs.50/- per ton in order to weigh the coal and because of this reason the lifting of coal is hampered since 14.4.2009 and they are informed by R.C.Mishra that until Rs.50,000/- is given to him, he shall not allow to lift the coal. On this complaint, the CBI came into action and after voice recording of the conversation between the complainant and R.C.Mishra, a trap was arranged. A verification memo (Ex.P-100) was also prepared in this behalf. During the trap proceedings, it was found that R.C.Mishra, after taking amount of Rs.10,000/- from complainant Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, had handed over the same to the present appellant Mintu Dubey, who had kept the amount in the left side pocket of his shirt. Both the accused, R.C.Mishra and Mintu Dubey were caught red-handed on the spot and thereafter when their hands were washed in colourless solution of sodium carbonate, and the same turned into pink. However, the recovery of Rs.10,000/- is duly proved from the possession of the appellant.

3. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons R.C.Mishra and Mintu Dubey. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of the prosecution and the plea of the accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellant and co-accused R.C.Mishra under aforesaid sections as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved of the same, present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Mintu Dubey.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant Mintu Dubey has been falsely implicated in the matter by the CBI despite there being no evidence on record to connect the present appellant with the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that mere recovery of the bribe amount from the possession of the appellant, without there being any corroborative evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe by the present appellant, cannot be a ground to record a finding of guilt against him and convict him. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention mainly to the testimony of (PW-1) Gaya Prasad Panika who is the Office Superintendent, NCL Singrauli, (PW-2) Sunil Kumar Singh the Head Clerk, West Central Railway, Jabalpur, (PW-4) Shivendra Kumar Mishra, Grade-II Clerk, Weigh Bridge, NCL, Rakesh Kumar Tiwari (PW-6), Complainant of the case, (PW-9) Hari Om Dixit, Inspector, CBI, to contend that the testimony of none of these witnesses can be said to be sufficient to convict the present appellant but still, the learned judge of the special court has convicted the appellant . In fact, even accepting