The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to comply with procedural requirements and evidential standards results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/02/2018 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Corruption Special Case No.03/2015, whereby the learned Court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.03.2015, the complainant Maksudan (PW-6) appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur, and lodged a written complaint (Ex. P-27) stating that he owns four acres of agricultural land in village Kewatin Tola where he had installed a tube-well for irrigation. For obtaining subsidy, he had submitted the bill, voucher, work map and khasra documents to the accused Basant Sikheriya, the then Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Kokapur, about a year earlier. It was alleged that on 09.03.2015, the accused visited his field and demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000 for processing and sanctioning the subsidy amount. As the complainant did not wish to pay the bribe, he submitted a written complaint to the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. He was thereafter instructed in the use of a digital voice recorder, and a pre-trap memorandum (Ex. P-22) was prepared, and on 17.03.2015 he submitted a second complaint (Ex. P-28) along with the recorded conversation of the accused’s demand.

Pursuant to the complaint, scripts of the recorded pre-trap conversation (Exs. P-23 and P-24) were prepared and the CD was seized (Ex.P-25). Thereafter, Crime No. 0/2015 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered and investigation commenced. For the trap on 18.03.2015, the complainant produced Rs.10,000 (twenty Rs.500 notes), the trap team was constituted, and the preliminary memorandum (Ex. P-3) was prepared. The trap was executed at the residence/office of the accused at village Kokapur, where the tainted amount of Rs.10,000 along with other currency was recovered under seizure memo (Ex. P-11). Phenolphthalein test was conducted, the solution bottles were sealed and seized (Ex. P-12), and the accused was arrested under arrest memo (Ex. P-13). The transcript of trap-time conversation (Ex.P-14) and the CD (Ex. P-15) were seized, and the Patwari prepared the spot map (Ex. P-32) and site description (Ex. P-33). Proceedings memorandum (Ex. P-10) was also prepared, and relevant departmental documents regarding the duties of the accused (Exs. P-20 and P-21) were collected.

The seized solutions were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, and were found positive for phenolphthalein. Statements of the complainant Maksudan and independent witnesses Sumeet Agrawal, Virendra Singh, Ghanshyam Sahu, Rajendra Singh Thakur, Parmeshwar Thakur, J.L. Mandavi and Anand Singh Netam were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, the matter was forwarded for sanction; prosecution sanction (Ex. P-36) was obtained and the FSL report (Ex. P- 34) was received. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed.

2. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to bring home the charges. The accused person abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication.

3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein- above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant- accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and orde