The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue, and the permissibility of drawing an inferential deduction of culpability based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

1. This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.2006 passed in Special Case No.1/2005 by the Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Rajnandgaon, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 13(1) d read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant-Chandrabhagabai (PW-1), a resident of Thakurtola and her husband Lakhan Lal had purchased some land in the month of August 1999. The complainant after execution of the sale-deed handed over the papers to the respondent/accused for Pramanikaran. The Revenue Inspector also passed the order for Pramanikaran by the Patwari/Accused on 1.12.1999. The complainant contacted the respondent-accused several times in this regard However, the accused made a demand of Rs.500/- for such work. Since the complainant was not willing to give bribe, she approached the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt on 13.3.2000 and made a written complaint. On such complainant being made, a trap was planned and a micro tape cassette was arranged, which was given to the complainant and its mode of operation was explained to her and a Panchnama in this regard was prepared vide Ex.P/2. On 14.3.2000, the complainant contacted the accused and she recorded his conversation regarding demand of bribe and handed over the cassette to the officials and its transcription was prepared vide Ex.P/14. Thereafter, a trap was laid on 17.3.2000 and for such raid, again, a new micro cassette was provided to her and for which, Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/5 and the trap proceeding was prepared vide Ex.P/6. As per the plan, the complainant was handed over Rs.400/- in a denomination of Rs.100/- (4 in numbers) as bribe money for giving it to the respondent/accused. On the said notes, Constable Narayan (PW-3) applied Phenolphthalein powder on the notes and the same were handed over to the complainant. The shadow witness - Bhuvandas Kesariya (PW-8) was given instruction that when the respondent-accused would accept the bribe money, he had to give a signal with a gesture by keeping both the hands around the head. On the date of the trap, when the shadow witness – Bhuvandas Kesaria (PW-8) gave the signal in the same manner, Inspector RK Rai (not examined) caught hold of the right hand of the respondent/ accused and constable Shyam Sunder Rao (PW-7) caught hold of his left wrist. The respondent/accused accepted the bribe while he was wearing a full pant and the money was recovered from his pocket which got matched with Baramdagi Panchnama. When the hands of the accused were dipped in the Sodium Carbonate solution, the colour of his hands turned pink. The complainant also handed over the recorded tape cassette to the officers and thereafter, the transcription was prepared by Constable Shyam Sunder Rao (PW-7) vide Ex.P/17. The Prosecution Sanction was obtained vide Ex.P/13 and thereafter, the charge sheet was filed.

3. During trial, the respondent/accused denied the charges under Section 7 read with 13(1) d read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many 12 as witnesses. The accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he did not adduce any defence evidence. In his statement, the accused further stated that he had not taken any bribe from complainant - Chandrabhagabai (PW-1). The money which was lying on the table and apprehended, was asked to be kept in the pocket, which he did as per the direction of the police party and it was that money which was recovered from him. He stated that he had not accepted any bribe from the complainant. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the accused from the charges. Hence, this Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused and the appreciation of the evidence is perve