JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgement of conviction and order on sentence dated 12.03.2010 passed by Special Judge, Delhi in Criminal Case No. 124/2008 arising out of FIR No. 28/2003 registered under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, (hereinafter, referred to as „PC Act‟) at P.S. Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi.

Vide the impugned judgement, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of PC Act and vide the order on sentence, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- on each count, in default whereof, he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that the Complainant Mohd. Fahad had purchased a flat in name of his mother which was allotted by DDA. The complainant was asked by BSES department to get some documents attested by a DDA officer for purposes of meter installation. The appellant was an Executive Engineer attached with Electrical Division No.7, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Near Water Tank, Delhi. The complainant met the appellant on 23.06.2003 when the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.3,000/- for attesting the documents. When the complainant resisted, the appellant settled for a sum of Rs.1,000/- and asked him to come on 28.06.2023. On the said date, the complainant went to the Anti-Corruption Branch and gave a written complaint Ex. PW6/A in presence of panch witness Uma Shanker Gupta before Raid Officer insp. Sheel Nidhi. The complainant arranged Rs.l,000/- in cash in the form of two currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/-each and handed them to the Raid Officer. The notes were also checked by the panch witness and their serial numbers were noted down and they were treated with Phenolphthalein Powder in the pre-trap proceedings. The Raid Officer explained the purpose of treating the notes with Phenolphthalein to the complainant and panch witness. The complainant, panch witness and Raid Officer alongwith other members of the raiding team reached the DDA office, Lawrence Road at 2.50 PM. At about 3.25 PM, PW13 received the pre-determined signal from the panch witness and he along with raiding team rushed to the room in which JE and AE used to sit. Panch witness informed him that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe money of Rs.1000/- from the complainant with his left hand and kept the same in left pocket of his pant. On the directions of the Raid Officer, the panch witness recovered the bribe amount of Rs.1000/- from left side pant pocket of accused and the serial numbers of the notes tallied with those noted down in pre trap proceedings. The left hand of the appellant was dipped in sodium carbonate solution which turned the colourless solution pink. The appellant was thereafter apprehended.

3. It is duly informed that during the course of proceedings, the appellant has expired on 11.06.2021. Since the outcome of the appeal would have an impact on the pensionary benefits of the deceased, the wife of the appellant was granted leave under Section 394(2) Cr.P.C. to continue the appeal vide order dated 02.08.2022 and was substituted as appellant in the place of deceased. For convenience‟s sake, the deceased is referred to as the appellant.

4. In the present trial, a total of 13 witnesses were cited by the prosecution to prove its case. The complainant was examined as PW6. PW8 was the shadow/panch witness arranged by the trap laying/raid officer, who was examined as PW13. Mr. D.K. Jha, AE whose signatures were on the document for which the bribe was demanded, was examined as PW5. Besides above, the other witnesses were formal in nature relating to various aspects of investigation.

On the other hand, the accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. claimed that he was innocent and that he h