The demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money without evidence of demand is insufficient for conviction.

Judgment :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2007 passed by learned Special Judge under the Act and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 01/2005, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:-

2. As per the prosecution, the complainant Lakhan Lal Sen (PW-3) had obtained a loan of Rs.60,000/- under the Pradhan Mantri Rozgar Yojana from Dena Bank, Lahoud Branch. Out of the sanctioned amount, the complainant had already received the first instalment of Rs. 30,000/-. At the relevant time, the accused was posted as the Branch Manager of the said bank. The accused, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.6,000/- for releasing the loan instalments. The complainant had already paid Rs.5,000/- and for the second instalment the accused allegedly demanded a further Rs.1,000/- stating that the instalment would not be released without payment. Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant submitted a written complaint (Ex.P/5) to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Raipur on 29.01.2003. The complaint was endorsed to Inspector Vishwas Chandrakar (PW- 12) and a crime was registered vide Ex.P/69). Two panch witnesses, Ramanand Divya (PW-4) and Prasun Kumar Sharma, were summoned for trap proceedings scheduled for 30.01.2003.

On 30.01.2003, after the panch witnesses assembled at the ACB office, a trap team comprising senior officers and staff proceeded to Baloda Bazar, where the complainant joined them. Ten currency notes of ₹100/-, totalling ₹1,000/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder, their numbers recorded, and preliminary demonstrations were conducted. A pre-trap panchnama (Ex.P/6) was prepared. The trap team reached the accused’s residence at about 19:10 hrs. The complainant entered the house and shortly thereafter, returned and gave the pre-determined signal. Inspector Khare and Ramanand Divya (PW-4) entered the house, apprehended the accused, and disclosed their identity. On being confronted, the accused became nervous and stated that the money could be taken from the bed where it had been placed. The accused’s hand-wash in sodium-carbonate solution turned pink, indicating contact with phenolphthalein. Ten treated currency notes were recovered from the bed, and their numbers matched those recorded in the pre-trap panchnama. The bed-sheet wash and note-wash also turned pink. The applicant’s hand-wash likewise tested positive. The solutions, currency notes, and other relevant articles were seized.

A site plan was prepared by Revenue Inspector Kanhaiya Lal Sahu (PW-5). Documents relating to the complainant’s loan file were seized from Dena Bank. The accused’s statement was recorded wherein he claimed that the amount received was margin money. He was arrested and released on bail at the spot. A post-trap panchnama (Ex.P/12) was prepared, and the seized articles were sent for chemical examination. The FSL report was received in positive form. Sanction for prosecution (Ex.P-4) was obtained, and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The learned trial Court framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which the appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

3. To esta