JUDGMENT :

PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed jointly by both the appellants challenging the common judgment dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 10/2016, whereby the appellant No. 1, Prithvilal Meena was convicted under Section 120-B of IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1988”), and appellant No. 2, Hemraj @ Foru was convicted under Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 8 of “the Act of 1988” and both were sentenced as under:

All the sentences to run concurrently.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The case of the prosecution as culled out from records is that on 01.02.2016, the complainant Kailash Meena and Ramphool Meena submitted a written complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bundi, alleging demand of illegal gratification by the appellant No. 1, Prithvilal Meena, who was working as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board. It was alleged that on 29.01.2016, the appellant No. 1, Prithvilal Meena along with his staff inspected the electricity meters installed at the complainant’s premises and thereafter verbally imposed a VCR penalty of Rs. 80,000/-. Subsequently, the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena allegedly demanded illegal gratification for settlement of the matter.

3. According to the prosecution, on 01.02.2016, the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena directed the complainants to contact his driver and associates, who demanded Rs. 20,000/-, out of which Rs. 14,500/- was paid and remaining Rs. 5500/- was agreed to be paid. The demand was verified by the ACB and thereafter, on 02.02.2016, a trap was organized. Two independent witnesses were associated with the trap proceedings. The bribe amount of Rs. 5,500/- was treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant- Kailash with necessary instructions. At about 11:40 AM, both the complainants met the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena in his office. As per the prosecution, upon communication and approval of the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena, the bribe amount was passed through Ramhet and ultimately accepted by appellant No. 2 Hemraj @ Foru, who kept the tainted money in the pocket of his trouser. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal, the trap party immediately entered the office and conducted a search. The phenolphthalein test of appellant No. 2 Hemraj was found positive and a sum of Rs. 5,500/- was recovered from his possession. Both the appellants Prithvilal Meena and Hemraj @ Foru were present together in the same room when the search party arrived.

4. During search a red diary with some documents, belonging to the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena was recovered and seized, containing entries relating to meter checking of complainant's premises along with VCR numbers and photograph references. The hand-written slip bearing names of the complainants were also seized.

5. The appellants during investigation refused to give their voice samples in writing.

6. After completion of the investigation and upon obtaining the requisite sanction for prosecution, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants Prithvilal Meena, Hemraj @ Foru and co- accused Ramhet Meena for the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of “the Act of 1988”.

7. During trial to substantiate the charges framed against the appellants, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:

and produced documentary evidence as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/43, besides Articles 1 to 29.

8. In defence, the appellants have examined the following witnesses:

and produced Ex. D/1 to D/7 documents.

9. After considering the evidence produced by both sides, the learned trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offences