Proof of demand is the sine qua non for conviction under anti-corruption laws. Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to establish guilt. In the absence of credible proof of demand and considering material contradictions in evidence, a conviction cannot be sustained based solely on recovery.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant – original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (ACB) Case No. 3/2004 on 28.11.2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act.

1.1 The appellant is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 The accused was working as a Helper in the GEB, Vartej Subdivision and was a public servant. The complainant - Ratilal Naranbhai Sonani (Patel) was a resident of village Tarsamiya, Taluka & District, Bhavnagar and had his residential house in the Tarsamiya Main Bazaar near the primary school and 15 to 20 years prior to filing of the complaint, he had taken an electricity connection which was provided from the pole behind his house. The plot near the electricity pole belonged to one Virjibhai Thakarshibhai and at that time the electricity connection was given on condition that the electricity wires would be transferred to the pole near his house. About four to five years prior to the filing of the complaint, an electricity pole was erected in front of the house of the complainant on the road and Virjibhai Thakarshibhai had requested the complainant to get the wires transferred from the pole behind his house to the pole in the front of the house. Two to three days after his conversation with Virjibhai, the complainant met the accused who told him that he would have to incur an expenditure of about Rs. 2000/- for transferring the wires but he would do the entire procedure if an amount of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification was given to him. The accused also told him that if he gave the application, his work would not be done for three to four years and on a number of occasions, Virjibhai Thakarshibhai had requested the complainant to get the wires transferred. On the Monday prior to filing of the complaint, the accused came to the house of the complainant and asked whether he wanted to get the wires transferred and told the complainant that he would do it in a couple of days. On 09.03.2004, the accused called the complainant from his residential telephone and told him that he would come on 10.03.2004 to Tarsamiya village and bring the necessary instruments to transfer the wires and to stay at home. On 10.03.2004, at around 08.00 am, the accused came to the house of the complainant with the necessary instruments and started the work of transferring the wires and asked for the amount of Rs. 500/- but the complainant told him that he was going to his factory and would return within two and a half hours. The accused told him that after transferring the wires, he would go to Vartej for his work and if he did not return before 11.00 am, he could come to his house between 08.00 pm to 09.00 pm after inquiring on the telephone and to give the amount o