The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

Challenge in the present appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.9.2005 passed by the Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 10/2002 whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Dr. Shankar Pushpkar opened a clinic at Nehru Nagar, Raipur and for the purpose of getting telephone connection in his clinic, on 12.4.2001 he deposited the requisite fee of Rs.2000/- with the Telephone Department but no such connection was provided to him. Hence the complainant sent his assistant Purushottam Manikpuri to Telephone Exchange, Tikrapara for enquiring about the matter where he met the accused/appellant who was working as Sub Divisional Officer (Telephone) and he demanded Rs.400/- for providing telephone connection. On 1.5.2001 when the complainant went to the office of the accused, he again demanded Rs.400/- for telephone connection. Since the complainant did not want to give bribe to the accused and wanted to get him caught red handed, on 2.5.2001 he wrote a complaint regarding demand of bribe by the accused to Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Raipur who authorized Shri NS Rajput, Dy.SP, Special Police Establishment to enquire into the matter. For verification of the complaint, the complainant was given a micro tape recorder with empty cassette for recording the conversation regarding demand of bribe by the accused. On 3.5.2001 the complainant again submitted an application to the SP, Special Police Establishment along with tape recording of conversation with the accused regarding demand of bribe.

03. Dy. Superintendent of Police Shri NS Rajput called the panch witnesses namely Shri Avinash Sharma and Dr. Vimal Kumar Kanungo, Assistant Professors of Govt. Science College, Raipur, to Lokayukt Office, Raipur on 3.5.2001, they were introduced to the complainant who had come with bribe amount of Rs.300/- and also informed about the demand of bribe by the accused. After recording numbers of three currency notes of 100 denomination produced by the complainant in the Preliminary Panchanama (Ex.P/8) and applying phenolphthalein powder on the said notes, it were kept in the left pocket of complainant's shirt with an instruction to give this amount on being demanded by the accused in his hand only and before and after giving this amount to him and, he should not shake hand with him and that thereafter he is to give signal to the trap party by scratching his head. The complainant and the witnesses were made aware of the trap proceedings.

04. After reaching the office of the accused, the complainant gave the tainted notes of Rs.300/- to the accused and after coming out from the office, gave signal to the trap party whereupon the trap party entered the office and Constable Shyam Sunder caught hold of left wrist of the accused and Rakesh Bhatt, Police Inspector, caught hold of his right wrist. The bribe amount was seized at the instance of the accused from his table which was kept under a diary and on numbers of the currency notes being tallied, it were found to be the same tainted notes described in the preliminary panchanama. After completing the usual formalities, charge sheet under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was filed against the accused.

05. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption A