DARSHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused-appellant, Darshan Lal, against the judgment and order dated 28-2-1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in proof of offences committed under Section 5(2) P.C. Act, 2006 read with Section 161, RPC, and in the event of default in payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Mr. Ajay Abrol, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that the prosecution in order to succeed must show first that there was a demand of bribe by the appellant and the acceptance of the bribe money from the complainant. His further submission is that in the absence of proof of either of these ingredients, it would entail the failure of the prosecution case. In addition to this, it was urged that when a reference is made to the statement of the complainant and the FIR lodged by him, it is significant to point out that the name of the accused-appellant has not been indicated in the complaint to have demanded the bribe money and its receipt by him for entertaining the admission Form. There is no corroboration to the statement of the complainant with regard to the demand and receipt of the bribe money by the accused- appellant. The sole statement is at variance with the FIR and the same remains uncorroborated by any independent witness in material particulars and is not qualitative and sufficient to record the conviction of the accused-appellant.

(3.) Another argument was addressed that even the Investigating Officer, after recording the statement of the witnesses with regard to other incriminating circumstances, has unambiguously stated that no case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 has been disclosed against the accused-appellant. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and held the accused guilty without any legal evidence which could not be read against the appellant and, thus, appeal deserves to be allowed, conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused-appellant quashed and set aside. Whereas, Mr. B. S. Slathia, learned AAG appearing for the State, on the other hand, contended that the complainant who lodged the FIR is a witness of sterling character, his evidence alone is sufficient to prove essential ingredients of the offence, viz. demand and acceptance of the bribe money which stood further corrobroated by the evidence of handwriting expert and another witness from whom he borrowed Rs. 100/- to be given as bribe to the accused-appellant for entertaining his admission form for appearing in the bi-annual Matriculation Examination of 1982. He further submitted that there was overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond hilt.