Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which can be established through direct and circumstantial evidence.

ORDER :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1.The State has preferred this Acquittal Appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 30-6-2018 passed by the learned Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Special Criminal Case No. 3 of 2014 whereby the accused has been acquitted from offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(D) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “The Act, 1988”).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 3-5-2011 the complainant Chandrajit Yadav made a complaint (Ex. P/4) against the respondent to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur, alleging that a dispute arose between his sons namely Ayodhya Yadav and Jay Kishan Yadav who is resident of village Damakudkuda on 23-4-2011 which resulted into physical altercation. Jaykishan filed a report at Dhaurpur Police Station against Ayodhya Yadav and his friend namely Suresh @ Deriha. Accordingly, he met Police Station In-charge on 24-4-2011 at Thana Dhaurpur, then he after taking the names of his son and friend told him that he will close the case. Accordingly, he sent his son and his friend to the Police Station, but the accused has assaulted them by his constable and when he requested then he demanded Rs. 50,000/- otherwise, charges will be framed against him. The complainant immediately given Rs. 5,000/- to him, but he against demanded for Rs. 50,000/- and assured him that he will make small case against them otherwise, serious charges will be framed against them. The complainant requested the appellant that it is not possible for him to give such a huge amount immediately, then he asked him to arrange within 1 or 2 days. The complainant came to the accused on 26-4-2011 and given Rs. 10,000/- to him then accused told him that he is reducing Rs. 5,000/- from the amount of Rs. 50,000/- accordingly, the accused told him to bring remaining Rs. 30,000/- within one or two days. The accused after putting signature of his son in some papers asked the complainant to take away his son. The complainant has recorded the negotiation between the accused and the complainant through mobile phone of his son Ayodhya. Since the complainant is not inclined to give Rs. 30,000/- to the accused, he contacted the Anti Corruption Bureau then the Dy. Superintendent of Police advised him to talk to the accused and he has recorded the negotiation which took place on 26-4-2011 as well as on 27-4-2011 and also prepared CD of the same.

3. On the basis of complaint made by the complainant, information for cognizable offence under Section 154 was registered against the accused for commission of offence under Section 7 of The Act, 1988 on 3-5-2011. Thereafter, proceeding for catching the accused red handed was initiated and a trap team was constituted. The complainant was given currency notes containing phenolphthalein powder and as per the direction given by the trap team on 04-05- 2011, the said currency was given to the respondent/accused by the complainant as bribe amount, thereafter the trap team reached at the place of occurrence and hands of the respondent were washed out by sodium carbonate and the colour of the water turned to pink colour and accordingly the respondent/accused was caught red handed by the