The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, the relevance of circumstantial evidence, and the insufficiency of mere recovery of tainted money to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.4.2009 passed in Special Criminal Case No.2/2008 by the Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant – Baliram Jaiswal (PW-2) lodged a written report on 31.7.2006 before the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Curruption Bureau, Bilaspur to the effect that after the partition of their land, the Tehsildar, Bilha ordered the concerned Patwari/accused for preparing a separate Rin Pustika in the name of five brothers on 12.6.2006. For the said purpose, the complainant, contacted the respondent/accused 2-3 times, but he started demanding bribe money for the same. On 30.7.2006, the accused made a demand of Rs.1800/- for preparing Rin Pustika and on negotiation, the amount was settled at Rs.1500/- to be paid as bribe. Since the complainant was not willing to give bribe, he contacted the Anti Corruption bureau. After preparing the Prarambhik Panchnama, a trap was laid for the date ‘1.8.2006’. After a successful raid and obtaining sanction vide Ex.P/15, the charge sheet was filed.

3. During trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The respondent/accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not adduced any defence evidence. In his statement, he further stated that against complainant- Baliram Jaiswal and his brother Bahoran, he had registered two encroachment cases, in which, the complainant and his brother were fined. He further stated that he had not received any order from the Tehisldar after the partition in the matter of the complainant. He further stated that on the date of the incident, the complainant had handed over the certified copy of the order to him and when he had gone inside his house, in his absence, to inculpate him in a false case, the bribe money was kept in the register. The accused stated that he was not aware about it and thus, he had not demanded any bribe money from the complainant.

4. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court after evaluating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the respondent/accused from the charges under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, this Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and the complainant and the prosecution have successfully establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal and convict the accused.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would support the impugned judgment and submit that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. He would place reliance on the matter of M.K. Harshan Vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 SCC 720, in which, the tainted money was put in the drawer and there was no evidence regarding knowledge of the accused. By preponderance of probabilities, the accused therein has sufficiently shown that the plea put forward by him, namely, that in his absence somebody else might have put the tainted money in his drawer, is plausible. In the instant case also, the bribe money was put inside the register. Learned counsel would draw attention of the Court towards the statement of DK Malwear (PW-1), in which, vide para 5, he categorically deposed that when the trap party reached the respondent/accused’s house, he was not sitting on his chair and on being called, he came out of the house to his room. He further deposed that though the hands of the respondent/accused were dipped into the Sodium Bicarbonate solution, but the colour of the hands did not change, which shows that the accused had not touched the tainted