JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar Shukla, J.—This Criminal appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No. 2/05, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him under Section 7read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the respondent was posted as Secretary in Nagar Palik Nigam (Municipal Corporation), Rajnandgaon. The house of Mantora Bai was situated in Rajnandgaon. After her death, her grand son complainant Rajkumar Gupta (PW-7) was residing in that house along with his family. For assessment of property tax of that house, father of the complainant had submitted an application in Nagar Palik Nigam Rajnandgaon. At the time of submission of that application, the respondent was serving as Secretary in Nagar Palik Nigam Rajnandgaon and was doing the job of assessment of property tax. When the complainant asked the respondent to make less assessment of property tax of that house, the respondent asked the complainant to pay him bribe of Rs. 500/-. The complainant did not want to give him any bribe, therefore, on 10.01.1991, he went to the office of Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Raipur and submitted a written complaint (Ex.P-1) to J.L. Verma, Deputy Superintendent of Police. After submission of the written complaint, the Special Police Establishment proceeded for trapping the respondent/ accused.

3. A trap was arranged. Currency note of Rs. 500/- was obtained from the complainant, its number was noted, the currency note was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the complainant was asked to keep the smeared note in the pocket of his full pant. A demonstration of reaction of sodium carbonate solution and phenolphthalein was also made in presence of witnesses. The details of demonstration including the smearing of phenolphthalein on the currency note handed over to the complainant were recorded in writing by way of memorandum (Ex.P-2). Thereafter, trap was laid in the house of the respondent. According to the case of the prosecution, bribe money was given to the respondent by the complainant which was accepted by the respondent and was kept in the pocket of his pyjama. The complainant came out of the house and gave signal to the trap team. Immediately thereafter, the trap team arrived at the spot and caught the respondent/accused read handed and recovered the currency note of Rs.500/- from the pocket of the pyjama of the respondent/accused. It was found that the currency note recovered from the respondent was the same note whose number was earlier noted by the trap team. The hands of the respondent/complainant and witnesses were washed and hand wash were separately kept and sealed in bottles. Panchanama of trap was also prepared vide Ex.P-3 and FIR was lodged videEx.P-27. After usual investigation, sanction for prosecution against the respondent was obtained vide order dated12.12.1994 vide Ex.P-19 and charge sheet was filed against him in the Court of Special Judge, Rajnandgaon. On the basis of the charge sheet and material contained therewith, the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent abjured the guilt and therefore, he was put to trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The learned trial Court, vide its impugned judgment, acquitted the respondent/ accused holding that the charges framed against him are not proved against which present appeal has been filed.

5. Assailing the correctness, legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal, Shri Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel for the State vehemently argued that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He further argued that the trial Court has not appreciated