- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The present criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A. No. 758 of 2008, wherein it has affirmed the conviction against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter "the P.C. Act") and reduced sentence awarded from 2 years to 1 year retaining Rs.5000/- fine imposed with default sentence of 2 months after re-appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses no.6, 9 and 13 and accepted their evidence as cogent to prove the charge levelled against him in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Various legal contentions have been urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant before this Court questioning the correctness of the judgment and order reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him from 2 years to 1 year with fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and in default sentence as mentioned above. This Court vide its order dated 02.02.2015 has issued notice to the respondent to re-consider the quantum of sentence subject to the condition that the appellant surrender to the Central Jail, Tihar to undergo sentence and file proof thereof within a week. Accordingly, he surrendered to the Central Jail, Tihar on 04.02.2015 in case FIR No. 29 of 1997.
(3.) Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that both the Special Court and the High Court have erred in convicting the appellant despite the fact that the main accused Ms. Manju Mathur has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 7,8, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, on appreciation of evidence on record and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against her. She was acquitted from the charges, which order has attained finality. The learned counsel has further contended that the courts below have erred in recording a finding of guilt on the charge as against the appellant despite the fact that there is no evidence on record to prove the same. The learned counsel has further contended that the High Court has erred in upholding the judgment and order of the Special Judge and did not consider the essential ingredients of Section 8 of the P.C. Act, which are that the accused should accept or agree to accept or even attempt to obtain gratification from someone, the gratification is for himself or for someone else and its motive or reward is to induce a public servant by corrupt or illegal means to do or forebear to do any official act or to show favour or disfavour to someone etc.;