C A V Judgment

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and 8th Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Session Case No.04/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Devlal Bande made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur alleging that the Appellant, who at that point, was Patwari of Halka no-20, Village Kotmi, Tah-Arang, Raipur had demanded by way of illegal gratification Rs 3,000/- for mutation and preparation of 'Rin Pustika' of the land which was purchased by the complainant in the name of his wife Smt. Urmila Bande. The allegation was that out of Rs 3,000/- as demanded by the Appellant Rs.1,500/- was given to him but he further was demanding Rs1,000/-. As per prosecution case, written complaint Ex-P/8 was given to Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur by the Complainant and consequently as per the Prosecution digital voice recorder was given to the Complainant for recording conversation with the present Appellant after preparing the preliminary panchnama (Ex-P/14). The verification of said report was carried out as Ex-P/9. On the basis of the said complaint, the tram team proceeded which laid to trap on Patwari and Rs1,000/- tainted note was recovered in the process thereof from the pocket of shirt wearing by the Appellant. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Appellant. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The prosecution has failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by the accused/appellant. It is settled legal proposition of the criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and this proposition is equally applicable to the case falling under Section 7 and 13 of PC Act, 1988. It is also settled law that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Section 7 and 13 of the Act 1988 and proved facts of both ingredients are indispensable essentiality and permeating mandate to bring home the charges of the offences. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charges under the said two sections. The proof of demand of illegal gratification which, thus, vitally essential ingredient and sine qua non for both the offences for which the Appellant has been charged are apparently missing and lacking in the present case. The Complainant categorically stated at para 2 of examination-in-chief that demand was made by the Appellant for 'Pramanikaran' and the Appellant had only said that it will take some time in process. He further states at para 6 that he and no other officers had reached at Patwari Office Nakata and as per the advise of the officer he had entered in the office and called the Appellant but when he offered Rs 1,000/- to the Appellant for issuing no objection certificate he refused to accept the amount. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 65-A and 6