Pradeep Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through C.B.I.

Heard the arguments of learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I.

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the above named sole appellant challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.C. Case No. 09A of 2007 (R) passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi vide its Judgment and order dated 10^th July, 2014 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been directed to undergo R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act; further directed to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, with default stipulation.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W.8) proprietor of M/s Maa Geevachh Enterprises lodged a complaint on 19.06.2007 against the present appellant stating inter alia that the appellant Pradeep Kumar, section Officer, SAIL, Ranchi was looking after Accounts work of SAIL Employees' Consumers' Co-operative Society Ltd. Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as SECCSL) has demanded illegal gratification/ bribe of Rs. 8,000/- in lieu of making payment of the bills of the complainant to the tune of Rs.80,000/- approximately in favour of the firm of the complainant against supplies of various consumable items to the said co-operative society. It is alleged that the accused was competent to process the bills of the said firm and to get issued the cheques against the pending bills of the said firm. It is further alleged that the accused had already got the cheques prepared in connection with discharge of bills of the complaint much before 19.06.2007 and kept in his custody and was not delivering the same to the complainant and was asking for illegal gratification for delivery of the same. It is further alleged that on repeated request and negotiation by the complainant on 19.06.2007 with the accused, the accused became ready to accept Rs. 6000/- as advance and remaining Rs. 2000/- after payment of the bills.

As the complainant was not intended to pay bribe , hence, he lodged a written complaint before S.P./CBI/ACB/Ranchi on 19.06.2007 requesting therein to take necessary legal action in the matter.

The complaint got verified through Sanjay Kumar Sinha (P.W.6), Inspector of CBI, Ranchi who thoroughly interrogated with the complainant and found the allegations leveled against the accused to be prima facie true and submitted his report. Accordingly, F.I.R. was registered and the charge of investigation was given to K.K.Singh (P.W.9), Inspector CBI, Ranchi.

A trap was laid to apprehend the accused red handed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 6000/-from the complainant. A team was constituted and all the members of trap team assembled in the office of K.K. Singh, Inspector on 19.06.2007 at about 7:30 PM. All the members were introduced about the purpose of assembly and pre-trap demonstration was conducted with assignment of role to each of the members. G.C. notes of Rs. 1000/- in denomination to number of the notes were noted and it was smeared with phenolphthalein powder, the reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate was also explained. The complainant was instructed to give the tainted G.C. Notes to the accused on being demanded by him as bribe otherwise not. The complainant was further instructed that after reaching the co-operative society at SAIL, Ranchi, he would negotiate the bribe matter with the accused in an audible manner so that the conversation be over heard by the witnesses and other trap party members present in the vicinity. The complainant was also asked to give a signal by right hand fingers after acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. The independent witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) was asked to accompany the complainant to listen the conversation between the both and also to observe the acceptance of tainted bribe amount Rs.6000/- of by the accused and other independent witness Om Prakash Sharma was also instructed to try to place himself as near as possible to the complainant and the accused in an unobtrusive manner to overhear the conversation as well as to see the acceptance of bribe by the accused. After completion of pre trap proceeding, a memorandum (Ext.10) was prepared which was signed by all the members of trap team including both the independent witnesses as well as the complainant. Thereafter, the trap team proceeded towards SECCSL office and reached there at about 4.55 P.M. on the same day. At about 5.15 P.M. the complainant (P.W.8) along with shadow witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) entered into the office of the accused Pradeep Kumar where he was sitting. After exchanging of wishing in Hindi by saying "Namaskar”, the accused also reciprocated the same by gesture and told that cheques were ready and he was waiting for him (the complainant). Upon this the complainant asked “whether his all cheques are ready”? The accused replied affirmatively and asked to the complainant whether he has brought money. The complainant answered in affirmative. The accused directed the complainant to keep the money below the file kept on the cooler lying in front of the table of the accused. Then the complainant took out the tainted G.C. notes from his pocket of wearing trouser and kept the same below the file which was kept on the said Cooler. The above conversation and transaction of bribe amount was clearly over heard and seen by the independent witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) who was present in the office room and also by O.P. Sharma (P.W.4) and Inspector K.K.Singh (P.W.9) who were standing there. Thereafter, the accused asked the complainant to sign on the vouchers. The complainant sat down on a chair lying there and started signing the vouchers. In the meantime Inspector (P.W.9) along with K. K. Singh, S. K. Sinha (P.W.6) and witness O.P. Sharma (P.W.4) entered into the office of the accused. The inspector K. K. Singh after disclosing his identity as well as other CBI trap team members who are present in the said office room challenged the accused for having demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.6000/- from the complainant. Then, the accused became nervous and told " Mai Rupaye Manga Nahi Tha Khushi Se Ye Diye Hai”. Thereafter, the accused declared arrested. On disclosure of the accused, tainted G.C. notes of Rs.6000/- were recovered from the said Air Cooler by the independent witness O.P. Sharma (P.W.4), who compared and tallied the number and denomination of the recovered G.C. notes with the number and denomination of the G.C. notes as recorded in pre trap Memorandum (Ext.10) with the help of another witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) and the same were tallied in toto. The said recovered notes were kept in an envelope which was duly sealed and signed by all concerned. Thereafter, the accused was subjected to personal search but nothing incriminating was found on his person. However, a personal search memo (Ext. 12) was prepared and a copy of arrest memo (Ext.11) was given to the accused. The office table of the accused was also searched and four number of vouchers (Ext. 1 to 1/3) pertaining to issue the cheques of different dates and its enclosure lying on the table of the accused were seized. It is alleged that due to law and order problem created at the place of occurrence, the trap team members left the said office and proceeded for the house of the accused where search of the house was made and thereafter, memorandum of recovery and seizure (Ext.14) was prepared.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused for the offence under section 7 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act 1988 and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 13.08.2007. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether (Nine) 9 witnesses:-

P.W.-1 Jai Ram Oraon

P.W.-2 Jagdish Singh

P.W.-3 Ram Awatar

P.W.-4 Om Prakash Sharma (Independent Witness)

P.W.-5 Vidyapati Choudhary

P.W.-6 S.K. Sinha (Verifying Officer)

P.W.-7 Ashok Kumar (Independent Witness)

P.W.-8 Jitendra Kumar Singh (Complainant)

P.W.-9 K.K. Singh (I.O.)

Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution has adduced following documentary evidence:-

Ext.-1 to 1/3 Vouchers relating to supply of articles by the firm of the complainant.

Ext.-1/4 to 1/7 Signatures of the Treasurer at the SAIL SECCSL Ranchi on vouchers

Ext.-2 to 2/3 Cheques drawn in favour of firm of the Accused

Ext.-2/4 to 2/7 Signatures of treasurers of SECCSL on Cheques

Ext.-3 Sanction Order

Ext.-4 to 4/59 Signatures of witnesses on different material exhibits and different documents

Ext.-5 Endorsement of P.W.-5 regarding receipt of copy of letter dated 06.07.2007 written by Inspector K.K. Singh to P.W.-5

Ext.-6 Letter dated 06.07.2007 written by P.W.-5 to Inspector K.K. Singh

Ext.-7 Written report of the complainant

Ext.-8 to 8/3 Signature of P.W.-8 J.K. Singh on the vourchers of SAIL

Ext. -9 F.I.R.

Ext.-10 Pre-trap Memorandum

Ext.-11 Personal Search Memo of Accused

Ext.-12 Memorandum of Arrest

Ext.-13 Memo of recovery and seizure

Ext.-14 Search List dated 19.06.2007 made from the house of the accused

The prosecution has also adduced following material exhibits:-

On the other hand, the defence has also examined following two witnesses:-

D.W.-1 Ashwini Kumar Sinha

D.W.-2 Ashok Kumar Jha

Apart from the above oral testimony, following documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence:-

Ext.-A Certified Copy of Deposition of P.W.-4 (O.P. Sharma) in R.C. Case No. 11A/2006(R) Ext. –B Bye-Laws of SAIL Employer Consumer Co-operative Society Limited Ext.-C to I Different dates of Letters

The learned trial Court after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence along with material exhibits relied upon by the prosecution arrived at definite findings of guilt of the appelalnt for the offence as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued and raised following points:-

 It is an admitted case of the prosecution that no bribe amount was recovered and seized from the conscious possession of the appellant and the evidence of complainant as well as shadow witnesses does not prove in clear terms that the appellant have ever demanded any amount of money of Rs. 6000/- as illegal gratification for passing the bills and issuing the cheques in favour of the complainant.

 The G.C. Notes have also not been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant, as such, very important limbs for constituting the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act i.e. “Demand”, “Acceptance” and “Recovery” of the bribe amount have not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside.

 It is further submitted that the complaint (P.W.-8) and independent witness P.W.-4 and P.W.-7 alleged to be shadow witnesses have given mutually destructive statement regarding initiation of conversation between the complainant and the accused and as regards, the demand of money and its recovery. Therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon.

 It is further submitted that written complaint was lodged on 12:30 PM, the same was got verified and its report was submitted and the pre-trap proceeding was concluded till 4:55 PM. Therefore, within four hours, all exercise has been completed in a haste at the instance of the complainant. The C.B.I. has called upon Shadow witnesses who are professionals and have given evidnce in several trap cases, therefore, they have become professionals. It is further submitted that the appellant was not a competent authority to pay the bills of the complainant. The bills submitted by the complainant itself was not attached with Form-9C which is mandatory for passing the bills as such there was no question of payment of bills of the complainant.

 The very vital aspect of the case is that as per the complainant, his cheques for discharging the bills were prepared but have not been given due to non-payment of bribe money but the alleged cheques issued in favour of the complainant has not been seized and brought on record as evidence. Therefore, the very genesis of the prosecution case becomes doubtful.

 It is further submitted that since the bills of the complainant could not be processes without support of Form 9-C, therefore, due to anguish, in connivance with C.B.I. officials, he has lodged this false case. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove necessary ingredients of the offence charged against him, therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant is liable to be side aside allowing this appeal.

 Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has also placed his reliance upon the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satvir Singh vs. State of Delhi through CBI reported as (2014) 13 SCC 143.

On the other hand, learned Sp.P.P. (C.B.I.) controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the vital aspects of the case, scrutinized and appreciated the evidence of witnesses, pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, material exhibits and arrived at right conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also settled law that if the demand and acceptance of gratification has been proved by the prosecution even through holding trap, the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act can be invoked to the effect that gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The defence has miserably failed to rebut the aforesaid presumption invoked against the appellant. During trap proceeding, the demand, acceptance and recovery has been proved which was in connection with passing the bills of the complainant. It is also submitted that if any work is pending before the accused, and there is demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money, the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act can be raised. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant and no merits in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. has place reliance in the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 4 SCC 731].

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

The only point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal?”

Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it is pertinent to take brief resume of the evidence available on record for proper adjudication.

P.W.1 Jai Ram Oraon is the then Deputy Manager, SAIL-cum-Executive Officer, SECCSL, Ranchi where the appellant was also the employee who has deposed that Pradeep Kumar was looking after work of Account and Finance in SECCSL, Ranchi and it was his duty to maintain record of daily sell, vouchers, preparation of cheque and delivery of the same to the person concerned. He further deposed that during the said period different product of Hindustan Lever Co. were purchased by SECCSL by its distributors M/s Maa Geevachh Co. Ltd. and proprietor of the said company was Jitendra Kumar. This witness has further identified and proved handwriting and signatures on four vouchers issued by SECCSL in favour of M/s Maa Geevachh Co. Enterprises. He has further deposed that after passing of the vouchers, four cheques were prepared by the accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that suppliers have to enclose "Form-9 C" along with bills presented by him for payment proving that supplier has paid sale tax but vouchers submitted by the complainant was not attached with Form-9C. This witness also admits that vouchers are passed by Treasurer and cheques are prepared by Pradeep Kumar but the same is signed by Secretary.

P.W.2 Jagdish Singh who was the Director- in- charge, R.D.C.I.S. SAIL, Ranchi from October, 2006 to March, 2009. And he was competent authority to remove Dr. Pradeep Kumar (the accused) from his service. He has also supported the fact that accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar was posted as Section Officer, SAIL who was to look after Accounts work in SECCSL. This witness had accorded sanction for prosecution against the accused.

In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he has not applied his mind in order to accord sanction.

P.W.3 Ram Awatar is also an employee of the SAIL, Ranchi. Who has also stated that the appellant was to look after the account work. He has further stated that all the cheques issued from the Honourary society is signed by Treasurer and counter signed by the Secretary. In absence of secretary the cheque has to be counter signed by the Chairman. This witness has stated that M/s Maa Geevachh Enterprises was also one of the suppliers of goods to SECCSL but Form-9 "C" was submitted by the said firm alongwith its vouchers or not, he could not tell expressing his no knowledge whether Form-9 "C" was submitted by the aforesaid firms in the year of 2005-06 or not. This witness has also admitted the fact in para 7 that the responsibility of accounts rests upon treasurer.

P.W.4 Om Prakash Sharma is an independent witness (Shadow Witness) who has deposed that CBI Inspector K.K. Singh (P.W.9) introduced this witness with the complainant Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W.8) and other CBI Officers sitting there. Ashok Kumar, another shadow witness, Public Relation Inspector of his Office was also present there and this witness was explained about the complaint with regard to demand of bribe by the appellant and about the pre trap proceedings including use and demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and after completing all the formalities, all the G.C. notes were treated by phenolphthalein and thereafter, said notes were returned to the complainant with direction that he would give the same to the accused when bribe would be demanded by him otherwise not and at about 4:00 P.M. alongwith trap team members proceeded for SAIL co-operative by two vehicles and reached there at about 4:20 P.M. This witness further states that the complainant Jitendra Singh entered in the office of the accused, wished him then the accused told that his all the cheques were ready and demanded bribe money from the complainant. The complainant took out money from his pocket to give but accused Pradeep Kumar directed the complainant to keep the money below the file kept on a Cooler situated in front of his table and complainant signed on those vouchers and gave signal to the trap team, then, all the members of the trap team including the CBI Inspector and witness reached there and recovered the said G.C. notes kept on the cooler and all post-trap formalities were completed.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has no documentary proof that his controlling officer directed him to go CBI Office. He himself stated that verbal direction was given to him.

P.W.5 Vidhyapati Chaudhary the then Branch Manager of SBI, who has only proved the letter sent by the C.B.I. Officers which has been marked as Ext-6.

P.W.6 Sanjay Kumar Sinha is the then Inspector CBI, ACB, Ranchi who has verified the complaint by only interrogating with the complainant in the C.B.I. office and submitted his report.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the complainant was present in the office of CBI and he orally interrogated to the complainant regarding the allegation and no statement of the complainant was recorded by him.

P.W.7 Ashok Kumar is independent-cum-shadow witness who is professional in witnessing the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings as and when required by the C.B.I. Similarly, as per direction of Sr. Postal Superintendent, Ranchi he along with another shadow witness Om Prakash Sharma went to CBI Office and were introduced with the complainant. He has further deposed that after completion of pre-trap formalities, they reached at co-operative society situated at SAIL Town, Ranchi. This witness has stated that he and complainant entered in the office room of the accused Pradeep Kumar and asked the accused whether his bill and cheques are ready? The accused answered affirmatively and asked whether the complainant has brought money? The complainant replied "Yes" and took out tainted money from his pocket of wearing trouser to give but the appellant directed to keep the bribe money below the file kept on the Cooler placed in front of his table and the complainant kept the G.C. Notes as per direction and the complainant signed on some bills/ papers and signal was raised, all the members rushed and on the direction of CBI inspector the money was recovered by witness Om Prakash Sharma (P.W.4) and the same was tallied with the numbers of notes mentioned in the pre trap memorandum which matched and further post-trap formalities were done. This witness in para 12 to 16 of his deposition has stated that he cannot tell the direction of office room , how many chairs for other officials were in the office of the accused and where the accused was sitting is also not known by this witness. He has also expressed his unawareness regarding the way to the office of the accused after entry from main gate. Further, he has also expressed his unawareness with regard to total number of members in the raiding party. He has also no knowledge that where all the raiding parties had taken their position to witness the post-trap proceedings. This witness has also expressed his unawareness with respect to position of cooler in the office of the accused which is alleged that money was kept upon the cooler.

P.W.8 Jitendra Kumar Singh, complainant, one of the partner as well as proprietor of M/s Maa Geevachh Enterprises has deposed that payment for supply of some goods was pending since June, 2007 and for that purpose, he met with the accused and the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 8,000/- at the rate of 10% of the bill amount and as this witness was not willing to give bribe money, he met with S.P. CBI, Ranchi on 19.06.2007 and submitted a complaint. The S.P. CBI sent him to S.K. Sinha (P.W.6) who interrogated him about the matter. And asked him to come in the office of CBI with Rs. 8,000/- and accordingly, he at about 12:30 P.M. again went to CBI office. This Witness has further stated that when he again reached in the office of CBI, Ranchi Inspector K.K. Singh (P.W.9), Inspector S.K. Sinha (P.W.6), other personnel of CBI and witnesses O.P. Sharma (P.W.4) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) were present there and was introduced with pre-trap formalities and the same were completed including two G.C. Notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/-, six G.C. Notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- and ten G.C. notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- total amounting to Rs. 6,000/-which were noted down with denomination of the said G.C. notes, smeared the white powder on the notes and returned the same to him with direction that the tainted G.C. Notes should be given to the accused only when the bribe money was demanded by the accused otherwise not and Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) was directed to remain along with him, so that he (P.W.7) may see the transaction of bribe money between the complainant and the accused and may also over hear conversation between the both. He has further stated that he along with witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.6) entered into SAIL co-operative building where accused Pradeep Kumar was sitting in his office. He wished the accused and asked that whether his cheques are ready? The accused replied affirmatively then, this witness requested him to hand over the cheque. The accused asked whether he had brought money. This witness took out the money and tried to give to the accused but he did not take money and asked him (P.W.8) to keep the money in the file kept on the Cooler and the same was kept there. Thereafter, he came outside the room and gave pre fixed signal upon which CBI team reached there. CBI Inspector K.K. Singh (P.W.9) introduced himself and challenged the accused for demanding and accepting the bribe, the accused firstly refused for accepting bribe but on interrogation the accused accepted that he has taken money but he has not demanded the money rather the same was given by the complainant voluntarily. When it was asked that where is the money? The accused indicated towards the said file kept on the cooler. Then, upon instruction of the Inspector (P.W.9), witnesses Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) and Om Prakash (P.W.4) recovered the tainted notes from the said file and tallied the number of recovered notes from the numbers mentioned in the memo of pre trap proceeding (Ext-10) and all numbers were matched completely and sealed in an envelop which was signed by the all present including himself and accused was arrested and was taken to his residence where search of his residence was made and an inventory of his property was prepared.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he has no document with regard to the fact that he met with the accused on 17.6.2007 and there is no witness of the fact that accused demanded Rs. 8,000/- as bribe on 17.6.2007. He has further admitted that the supplier has to submit Form-9C regarding payment of Sale Tax along with the bills presented for payment before the society but in the year 2006 which ever payment was received by him for the said firm, neither Form-9 "C" was asked to be submitted by the society nor the same was submitted along with the bills presented for payment before the society. He has further stated that सेल कोआपरेिटव सोसाइटी के बाहर पŠँचने के 15-20 िमिनट्स बाद हमलोग अंदर गए और उस सोसाइटी के िबİʒंग की चौहȞी नहीं बता सकता šँ उस कमरे का दरवाज़ा िकस िदशा मŐ है नहीं बता सकता šँ उस कमरे मŐ एक और आदमी बैठा था नहीं पहचानता šँ

P.W.9 K.K. Singh is the then Inspector CBI/ACB/Ranchi, main leader of the trap team and I.O. of this case. He deposed that on 19.6.2007 the complainant Jitendra Singh (P.W.8) filed a written complaint before the S.P. CBI, Ranchi alleging therein that the accused Pradeep Kumar, the then Section Officer, SAIL Co-operative society has demanded Rs. 8,000/- as illegal gratification for issuance of cheque regarding payment of the bills total amounting to Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the complainant against supplies of various goods to the co- operative society and after verification by S.K. Sinha, F.I.R. was lodged and investigation of the case was handed over to this witness. Accordingly, trap team was constituted and two independent witnesses namely O.P. Sharma (P.W.4) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) were arranged through their controlling officers. On 19.06.2007 at about 2:15 P.M. all the aforesaid trap team members, both independent witnesses and the complainant Jitendra Singh (P.W.8) assembled in the CBI Office and they were introduced to one another and were explained the use of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate which was followed by a practical demonstration and all other formalities were done and instructed that after reaching in the office of the accused, the complainant would negotiate the bribe matter with the accused in an audible manner so that the conversation be over heard by the witnesses present in and to give a signal after acceptance of bribe money by the accused. He further deposed that witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) was directed to accompany the complainant to listen the conversation between the both and also observe acceptance of bribe money by the accused. The witness O.P. Sharma (P.W.4) and members of trap team were also instructed to try to place themselves in vicinity. He has further deposed that at about 4:20 P.M. entire team was proceeded for SAIL Township, Ranchi and reached there at 16:55 P.M. He has further deposed that at about 17:55 P.M. the complainant (P.W.8) and shadow witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) were asked to enter in the office room of the accused and negotiate the bribe matter. In the meantime, members of trap team took their position in near vicinity of the office and he (P.W.9) along with witnesses O.P. Sharma placed themselves at the door of the said office. He further stated that the complainant alongwith witnesses Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) entered in the office room of the accused and wished him and the accused reciprocated with gesture and said "I have kept ready cheques and waiting for you." The complainant asked whether cheques for his all bills are ready”? The accused replied affirmatively and asked whether he had brought money. The complainant replied that he has brought Rs. 6,000/- and rest amount would be paid within one or two days. Then, the accused directed the complainant to keep the money beneath the file kept on the Cooler placed there and the complainant did so and on signal, this witness introduced himself and challenged the accused that he has demanded and accepted the bribe then, the appellant told that he has not demanded money and the money was given by the complainant voluntarily and the accused was arrested and on his disclosure bribe money was recovered by witness O.P. Sharma which was kept below the file on the Cooler placed in front of the accused in the office. P.W.9 has further testified that as directed, both the independent witnesses O.P. Sharma and Ashok Kumar tallied the number and denomination of recovered notes with the number and denomination of the notes mentioned in the pre trap memorandum (Ext-10). Thereafter, recovered notes were kept and sealed in an envelope which was signed by all the members of the trap team and after completing all other post-trap formalities, at about 18:30 hours, he alongwith accused and entire trap team went to the house of accused and search of the house of the accused was conducted. A memo of recovery and seizure and an inventory was prepared there.

In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the questions asked by the witnesses and answer given by the complainant during pre trap proceeding has not been mentioned in the diary. He further deposed that it has been mentioned in pre trap memorandum that trap team was constituted by S.P. CBI. He deposed that in para-2 of the case diary, he has mentioned that on the request of S.P. CBI two employees of Postal Department were sent to observe the proceeding as independent witnesses. He also admits that vouchers were seized from the table of the accused but cheques were not seized, so that the complainant could get payment of the same.

On the other hand, D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 and both of them has proved letters.

Before adverting to evaluate the aforesaid evidence available on record, it appears pertinent to extract the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Prior to Amendment in the year 2018)

It is also pertinent to mention relevant judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court in the matter of K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana, [(2022) 4 SCC 574] and Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 4 SCC 731] has held that for recording conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), the prosecution has to first prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The relevant paragraph number 11 of K. Shanthamma (Supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-

Similarly, the relevant paragraph number 88 of Neeraj Dutta (supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-

In the instant case, the evidence of witnesses as discussed above especially the evidence of P.W.-1, it appears that the complainant had filed its vouchers without attaching Form-9C. The complainant was not furnishing the Form-9C as was required for passing his bills and delivery of cheques in satisfaction of the bills. Moreover, P.W.-3 has also fortified the fact that whether Form-9 "C" was submitted by the said firm along with its vouchers or not, is not clear. It is further revealed from the evidence of P.W.-3 that all the cheques issued from the Honourary society are signed by Treasurer and counter signed by the Secretary and in absence of secretary, the cheque has to be counter signed by the Chairman and there was no duty of the appellant to hand over the cheques in discharge of the bills. It is also revealed from the evidence of complainant himself that he was partner of the said firm and used to supply various textiles, consumable items of Hindustan Liver to the said co-operative society in the last financial year 2005-2006. The said firm was not registered with sales tax department in order to avoid sales tax. It is further revealed from the evidence of P.W.-4 O.P. Sharma as well as (P.W.-9) I.O. that the currency notes were put below the file. The complainant also told him that he has kept the money below the file, and the currency notes were recovered from the same place where the complainant had put the same but not from the possession of the appellant as alleged. Therefore in such circumstances, there is no involvement of the appellant either in demanding or accepting illegal gratification in the post-trap proceedings wherein the appellant has not even touched the money as alleged to be demanded by the appellant which casts a doubt upon the prosecution story. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses have failed to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money as alleged by the complainant. Moreover, it appears that it was initially demanded Rs. 8000/-, thereafter, two installments were fixed but no evidence has been brought on record. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence which clearly indicates that the complainant desiring to press his bills illegally and without observing the legal procedure and upon objection raised by the appellant, complainant has falsely implicated the appellant in this case. The learned trial Court has also failed to consider that the sanction order was not issued by the competent authority.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P. and Anr. reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 has held in para 22 and 23 that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Para 22 and 23 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

Therefore, there is complete absence of any demand of bribe made by the accused, its acceptance and recovery as alleged by the complainant and, I find substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not competent to issue any cheques in satisfaction of the bills of the complainant rather it was the duty of the Secretary of the society to sign the same before the delivery of cheques. As discussed above, I also find substance in the points of argument that vouchers which were submitted by the complainant were not duly attached with Form-9C as per the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 and thus the above formalities were required to be completed by the complainant by submitting Form-9C which may be the reason behind non-issuance of cheques of the complainant. Thus, this creates doubts regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. Therefore, the benefit of doubt may be given to the appellant.

In the above factual background, the ingredients of either offence under Section 7 & 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is absolutely not attracted against the appellant. The learned trial Court has believed the testimony of the witnesses only on conjecturing and the observations of the learned trial Court are absolutely beyond the record. The totality of circumstances as proved by the prosecution clearly proves the innocence of the appellant.

In view of the above discussions and reasons, I find substance in the above points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant and merits in this appeal. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and he is acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged.

In result, this appeal is allowed.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.