Proof of demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing corruption offences. In the absence of consistent evidence of demand and a mechanical grant of sanction without application of mind, the conviction cannot be sustained due to reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.) the sole accused, in C.C. No. 154/1991 on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 30.10.2001 and order on sentence dated 01.11.2001 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as Constable at Jafarpur Kalan Police Station, Naib-Court in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Room No. 326, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 26.07.1991 at 03:00P.M., demanded, accepted and obtained illegal gratification of ₹150/- from PW4 for returning the insurance papers of the scooter bearing registration no. DL-4-1817 and destroying challan papers from the court record belonging to his tutor/teacher (PW10). Accordingly, as per the charge-sheet/final report dated 26.08.1992, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

3. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by PW3, Additional Commissioner (Crime), Police Head Quarters, New Delhi, vide Ext. PW3/A order, which is undated.

4. Crime no. 19/1991, i.e., Ext. PW11/K FIR, was registered on the basis of PW4/A complaint of PW4. After completion of investigation by PW11, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

5. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court vide order dated 31.12.1993, framed a charge under Section 7 and Section 13 of the PC Act, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 12 were examined and Exts. PW2/A-B, PW3/A, PW4/A-H, PW6/A, PW7/A, PW9/A-E and PW11/A-N were marked in support of the case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case as he had never demanded and accepted any money as bribe. Moreover, Inspectors of AC Branch i.e. IO and RO are not authorised to investigate or lay the trap in his case as there was no notification in their favour by the appropriate government empowering them to investigate the cases under the PC Act.

8. No documentary evidence was adduced in support of the defence case.

9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the impugned judgment dated 30.10.2001 held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated 01.11.2001, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each along with fine of ₹100/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days each for the offences