The main legal point established is that the conviction under the Act of 1988 was unsustainable due to the offence occurring before the Act came into force, and the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.8.1997 passed by learned Special Judge, Raipur, in Special Case No. 138/91, whereby and where under the deceased appellant-B.L. Dharshan is held guilty of commission of offence under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 7 and R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988. In default of payment of fine on both count, additional S.I. for 3 months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

1. Prosecution story, as unfolded from the records of the case and judgment of the learned trial Court, is that complainant-Premlal Verma (P.W.2) submitted application on 25.4.1988 for supply of copy of revenue records relating to land belonging to his father before the Tahsildar, on which, order was passed directing appellant/accused to supply copies. When complainant approached the appellant, bribe of Rs. 100/- was demanded for supply of copy. As the complainant was not willing to give bribe, complaint in Ex.P-2 was filed in the Vigilance Office. Taking cognizance of the report, panch witnesses were called. Currency notes produced by the complainant were tainted with phenolphthalein powder and their numbers were noted. Demonstration of chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate was given to the complainant in the presence of panch witnesses Arjun Singh Sisodia (P.W.3) and Sangram Singh (P.W.4). Tainted currency notes were kept in the pocket of the complainant with instructions not to touch it before handing it over to the appellant on demand. The pre-trap proceedings were reduced in writing by way of pre-trap panchnama in Ex.P-3. The trap party proceeded to the house of the appellant. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant came out of his house and when bribe money was demanded and accepted by him, trap team arrived at the spot. According to prosecution, though the appellant accepted bribe money, but, having seen the vigilance team, threw the same on the ground. Currency notes were lifted by one of the panch-witnesses and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-4. The relevant documents relating to supply of revenue records were also seized vide Ex.P-5. Hands of the appellant, complainant were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and according to prosecution, it turned pink. Handwash collected were kept and sealed in bottles. FIR (Ex.P-7) was lodged and investigation was carried out. The sealed bottles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Sagar and report (Ex.P-9) was received from FSL, which contained a report showing traces of phenolphthalein, found in the hand wash of the appellant and complainant both. Spot map was prepared in Ex.P-10. After obtaining sanction for prosecution vide Ex.P-1 and completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 26.7.1991. On the basis of material contained in the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant alleging commission of offence under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988. The appellant abjured guilt and demanded trial.

2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Appellant was examined by the Court in respect of the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him. Appellant denied and came out with defence that complainant was insisting on issuance of copy of khasra entries by recording name of the complainant along with the name of his father, which was refused. Therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated. In order to substantiate his defence that he had not accepted bribe, but an attempt was made to thrust the same in his hands, appellant examined Mohit Ram (D.W.1), as a sole defence witnes