IMPORTANT POINT
Before recording conviction of a public servant for the offence of taking bribe prosecution is bound to establish three ingredients (i) demand, (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery of bribe money. Mere recovery of money from accused person is not enough for sustaining his conviction.

JUDGMENT

G.M. Mir, J. - The appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 (Samvt.) and also under section 161 R.P.C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- on each count but it has been directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the accused appellant in the capacity of Food Inspector approached the complainant Ch. Mohd. Quereshi P. W. 4 resident of Mohalla Akhoor Sahib, Hawal Srinagar, who was manufacturing orange squash etc. in the name and style of 'Queen Provision Store' and demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- from him for hushing up a previous case lodged by the appellant against the complainant and also for getting exemption from obtaining a licence from the Municipality for the said manufacturing concern of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant told the accused to come on Sunday i.e. on 3-8-1974 to receive the bribe amount. On 2-8-1974, however, the complainant i.e. Ch. Mohd. Quereshi, lodged F.I.R. Ex. P.W. 2/2 narrating these facts before the Supdt. of Police Anti-Corruption Srinagar and requested for action to be taken against the appellant. A case, thus, came to be registered and the Anti-Corruption organization arranged a trap on 3-8-1974. It is alleged that on that date the appellant came to the residence of the complainant to receive the amount of the bribe. The appellant accepted Rs. 200/- in hundred rupee currency notes, from the complainant as bribe. These two notes had previously been got initialed by a Revenue Magistrate. The raiding party of the Anti-Corruption Organization recovered these to marked currency notes alongwith other money from the possession of the appellant in presence of some witnesses. The investigation was completed and the sanction to file the challan against the appellant was obtained from the Government and as such a challan was produced in the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption on 15-11-1975.

3. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under section 161 R. P. C. The appellant pleaded not guilty.

4. In support of its case prosecution put in the witness box S/Shri Manzoor Ahmad Quereshi, Gh. Mohd. Quereshi, Soom Nath Zutshi, Qazi Mohd. Syed and Mohd. Yousuf Inspector.

5. The appellant in his statement under section 342. Criminal Procedure Code denied the prosecution allegations and alleged that as he had previously prosecuted the complainant, a false case therefore, has been made out by him and in conspiracy with the police the challan was produced in the Court.

6. The appellant in his defence has in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption examined S/Shri Mohd. Maqbool, Gh. Hassan Shah D. Ws. to rebut the prosecution case. 7. P. W. Manzoor Ahmad Quereshi has deposed that Gh. Mohd. Quereshi P.W. was his brother-in-law. On the particular Sunday he had gone to see his sister and when he reached the house of Gh. Mohd. Quereshi he found him in a room alongwith the appellant. He also found in another big room, which was adjacent to the Kitchen, three more persons amongst whom Mohd. Yousuf Rather Inspector in the Anti-Corruption was one. These three persons were sitting near the wall listening to the conversation going on between the appellant and his brother-in-law. The witness went to a lawn and there from saw the three persons entering into the room where the appellant and the complainant were sitting. The witness also entered the room. All the three persons, including Inspector, asked the appellant as to where he had kept the bribe money received from the complainant. The appellant replied that he had received no money as bribe and offered to be searched. Thereupon one of the three persons searched the appellant and recovered a purse containing Rs. 197/- (one hundred ninety seven) and two one-hundred rupee currency notes. All this was recovered from t