S.C. GOEL Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the accused-appellant, who was working as a Junior Engineer (Works) with M.C.D., has been convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act). The aforesaid conviction has been affirmed by the High Court though the sentence has been reduced to the minimum prescribed.

(2.) We have heard learned counsels for the parties. We have perused the elaborate judgment of the learned trial Court as well as the High Court and also the evidence of witnesses examined, particularly, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9. It is contended before us on behalf of the appellant that in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove both the demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe money. So far as the alleged demand is concerned, it is urged that PW-5, the complainant, who is the sole witness in this regard had turned hostile. It is also pointed out by referring to the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 that there was no outstanding bills payable to the Contractor which fact would cause a serious dent in the case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged demand.

(3.) Insofar as recovery is concerned, it is urged that the sample of Sodium Bicarbonate solution in which the fingers of the accused were washed was not taken in his presence. The phenolphthalein test, therefore, cannot be relied upon to convict the accused-appellant.