The judgment emphasizes the need for corroboration of evidence in bribery cases, the requirement to prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money beyond reasonable doubt, and the degree of proof required to establish the defense.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th July, 1998 passed by learned Special Judge. Bilaspur in Special Case No. 1/1995, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1988’) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months & fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and R.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 13(1)(d) 1 Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. In default of payment of fine on both count, additional imprisonment of 3 months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that when the appellant was posted as In-charge Block Development Officer at Pendra, where complainant S.L. Yadav was posted as Accountant, appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.400/- towards clearance of pay-bills of the complainant.

3. According to the case of the prosecution, a complaint in Ex. P- 1 was lodged by S.L. Yadav (P.W.2) in the office of Dy. Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt Officer, Bilaspur complaining that leave applied in respect of 7 days of the month of July, 1991 and 10 days of the month of August, 1991 are not being allowed and 7 days salary for the month of July and entire salary for the month of August has been withheld. Further complaint was that 7 days' leave surrender application of the month of August, 1991 has also not been allowed and for allowing leave applications and making payment, appellant-Block Development Officer is demanding a bribe of Rs.400/-. It was also complained that even after the clerk submitted the bills, it was not signed and the complainant was called and asked to give Rs.400/- and he has been called with bribe money on Tuesday, which the complainant is not willing to give. After verification of the complaint, pre-trap proceedings were drawn, wherein, currency notes were obtained from the complainant and were chemically treated with phenopthalien powder. Demonstration of mixing of phenopthalien powder with sodium carbonate was given to the complainant in the presence of two panch witnesses namely - K.R. Netam (P.W.1) and S.N. Dubey, Dy. Superintendent of Police. The currency notes were kept in the pocket of the appellant with instructions. Pre-trap panchnama was prepared in Ex.P-2. The number of currency notes were also noted therein. After completion of formalities of pre-trap arrangements, it is stated that the trap party along with the complainant went to the office of the appellant and complainant went inside the office, gave bribe money of Rs.400/- and thereafter came out. After receiving signals, trap party entered the office of the appellant and it is alleged that from the pocket of the appellant, currency notes were recovered by prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, hands of the appellant, currency notes, pocket part of shirt and wallet were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and wash were sealed and kept in separate bottles. A trap panchnama in Ex.P-5 was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses- K.R. Netam (P.W.1) and S.N. Dubey, Dy. Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, relevant records and register of the officer were seized vide Ex. P-6, P-7 & P-8. Currency notes and shirt worn by the appellant were also seized vide Ex.P-3. A wallet along with cash and telegraph receipt was seized vide Ex.P-4. A dehati nalisi was recorded in Ex.P-12, which was followed by registration of Fir in Ex.P-13 in the police station. The samples of hand wash collected were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) vide Ex.P-16 and the report of FSL was received in Ex.P-17. After usual investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution vide order dated 1.10.1994 (Ex.P-39), charge sheet was filed in the Court on 14.2.1995. On the basis of material contained in the charge sheet, charges were framed against the appellant alleging commission of offence under Section