1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the first accused (A1) in C.C.No. 49/1994 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(the PC Act)read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that on 08.08.1994, A1, while working as a Junior Clerk in the District Office of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) at Radhu Palace, Delhi, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the second accused (A2), who was running a pan shop outside the DESU office, to obtain illegal gratification from PW1 for showing favour in adjusting the previous credit relating to an electricity connection installed at the PW1’s residence. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, on 08.08.1994 at about 01.45 p.m., A1 demanded ₹500/- from PW1 and directed him to hand over the amount to A2. PW1 accordingly handed over the amount to A2, who accepted it and passed it to A1, who accepted the same as illegal gratification by abusing his official position.

3. On 08.08.1994, PW1 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext. PW1/B, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, based on which, RC No. 51(A)/94/CBI/ACB/N.D.,FIR was registered alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.

4. PW9, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under the Section 120-B IPC read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

5. Ext. PW2/A Sanction Order for prosecuting A1 was accorded by PW2, Additional General Manager (A), DESU.

6. On receipt of summons when the accused persons appeared before the trial court, the Court after complying with the formality contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., on 18.04.1995, framed a Charge under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against both the accused persons and Section 7 and 13(2) r/w (13)(1)(d) of PC Act against A1, which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Ext. PW1/A - F, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW3/A - B, Ext. PW4/A - C, Ext. PW6/A - B, Ext. PW8/A, Ext. PW10/A - I and Ext. CW1/A - C were marked in support of the case.

8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. A1 submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by PW6 on account of personal enmity with his maternal uncle (PW8) and himself, in connivance with certain CBI officials.

9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused persons. Subsequently, A2 absconded during the pendency of the trial and was therefore declared a proclaimed offender.

10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2003, held A1 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, as well as under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Accordingly, A1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of ₹2,500/- under Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month; rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of ₹2,500/- under Section 7 of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month; and rigorous imprisonment for one