The Hon ‘ ble Apex Court has held that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirement of “demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the Appellant” .
In order to strict the rigorous of Section- 7, 13 (1) read with Section- 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution is under illegal obligation to prove the twin requirements of ” demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused” , the proof of one alone but not the other was not sufficient.
This was held in a case titled as Dashrath Singh Chauhan Versus Central bureau of Investigation in Criminal Appeal No. 1276 of 2010. The judgement was passed by the Division Bench of JJ Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra on 09.10.2018.
The Bench said that this requirement was mere strict in this case as the prosecution had failed to show a conspiracy between the accused and another employee Raj finder Kumar, from whom the bribe money was said to have been recovered. The prosecution has failed to prove conspiracy that the money was in fact bribed amount.
The Appellant Dashrath Singh had challenged the Delhi High Court Order of his conviction under Section-7 and Section-13 (2) read with Section- 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and consequent sentence of two years imprisonment and Rs. 40,000/- fine.
2 Darshan Kumar was working as a Inspector in DESU. On 28.03.1995, Complainant Arun Kumar lodged an FIR under Section-7 read with Section-13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Darshan and Rajinder complaining that in January,1995, he had applied for installation of electric connection for his Factory and met Darshan in his office where he demanded from him Rs.4,000/- and told him unless he passed a sum of Rs.4,000/- as bribe to him, it is not possible to install the electric connection. On the basis of the FIR, the CBI formed a raiding party and nabbed both Darshan and Rajinder but could not prove any conspiracy between the two.