Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 11 -

print out of the hash value of the file containing the relevant recording collected to authenticate the said evidence. In such circumstance, to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, the only evidence available on record is PW.2. On careful analysis of evidence of PW.2, as discussed supra, his admission in the cross-examination that he was unable to view the hand and finger movements of the accused and complainant since he was standing behind the complainant near the office door of the accused. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused, even if it is assumed that some sort of gesture/signal has been made, however it is impossible to construe that the signal was for monitory demand. Further, it is highly difficult to conclude the quantum of amount demanded by the accused or the payment of cash to the accused by the complainant as illegal gratification. As discussed supra, PW.1 totally denied the oral demand made by accused, the sole testimony of PW.2 in respect of the demand and payment by way of gesture/signal is not sufficient to constitute a demand and payment of illegal gratification.