In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must affirm the trial court's findings unless the accused's guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, maintaining the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 07.04.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Durg, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) in Special Case No. 1/1998, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges 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. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant/PW-5- Ramkhilawan Mishra was working as Assistant Grade-III in the District Ayurved Office, Durg, Chhattisgarh. On 28.06.1997, the respondent/accused, then posted as Superintendent-cum-District Ayurved Officer, transferred him from the Establishment Section to the Accounts Section. For reposting him to the Establishment Section, the accused allegedly demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/-, which was ultimately settled at Rs.4,000/- and after that, accused/respondent collected Rs.1,000/- as a grain advance of the complainant. On 22.07.1997, the complainant lodged a written complaint with the Lokayukt, pursuant to which, a trap was organized. The complainant carried tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.3,000/- (30 notes of Rs.100/- each), treated with phenolphthalein powder. It is alleged that the accused/respondent accepted the tainted notes and kept it, but upon noticing the trap party, threw the envelope towards the verandah. The envelope containing the alleged currency notes was recovered. Hand- wash and other articles were seized during investigation and a tape- recording was also produced. Thereafter, an FIR (Ex. P-13) was registered against the respondent/accused.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the respondent/accused before the competent trial Court. The accused abjured his guilt and sought to be tried.

4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, vide impugned judgment, acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges levelled against him.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent despite the recovery of tainted notes and a positive phenolphthalein test. He would further submit that the testimony of the complainant, duly corroborated by official witnesses, clearly established the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused/respondent and despite the availability of sufficient and credible evidence on record, the trial Court committed a serious error in law in acquitting the accused/respondent. Consequently, the impugned judgment is vitiated by perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned judgment and submit that the alleged recovery of tainted money from an open place or verandah weakens the prosecution case. He would further submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses including complainant. He would also submit that the demand for bribe, which is a sine qua non for conviction under the Act, 1988, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He would also contend that the tape-recorded evidence is inadmissible and the complainant’s conduct and service record make him an unreliable witness. He would also submit the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record, and its findings do not call for any interference in this appeal against acquittal