The main legal point established is that demand of bribe is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 06.01.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, Delhi ('Trial Court.) in CC No. 36/2005 whereby the respondent was acquitted for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act, 1988.).

2. To state briefly, the case of prosecution before the Trial Court was that a complaint dated 02.09.2004 was lodged with Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi by one Parmod Kumar, i.e. complainant, against Bijender Singh, i.e. respondent/accused, who was working as MohararMalkhana at Police Station ('P.S..) Narela at that time.

2.1. The complainant had stated that on 27.08.2004, he had gone to the office of NDPL, Narela, Delhi on his Motorcycle to deposit electricity bill, and had found his motorcycle missing when he had come out of the office. Upon inquiring, he had come to know that his motorcycle was seized by the police officials of P.S. Narela. On 01.09.2004, the complainant had moved an application in the office of ACP, Narela for release of his motorcycle, and an order was then passed to release the same. It was alleged that he had gone to meet the respondent at P.S. Narela who had demanded bribe of Rs.200/- from him to release the motorcycle, and had asked the complainant to come with the said amount on 02.09.2004 after 5:00 PM.

2.2. Pursuant to receipt of this information, a team was constituted on the same day for laying a trap on the respondent. The complainant produced a sum of Rs.200/- consisting of two government currency ('GC.) notes of Rs.100/- each. The trap laying officer (PW-10) got those notes checked through panch witness (PW-7), and the serial numbers of the same were recorded in the handing over memo and other pre-trap formalities such as demonstration regarding reaction of phenolphthalein powder were conducted. The bribe amount of Rs.200/- was then treated with phenolphthalein powder and was kept in the pocket of the complainant's shirt, and he was directed to hand over the same to the respondent only on his specific demand. Thereafter, panch witness was asked to remain close to the complainant and overhear the conversation and to see the transaction of bribe.

2.3. The raiding team had reached the spot at 05:45 PM on 02.09.2004. The complainant and panch witness had gone inside the concerned police station, where the respondent was on duty, and the other members of the team had taken suitable positions in disguised manner. After about 15 minutes, panch witness had given a predetermined signal and on noticing the same, trap laying officer and other team members had rushed towards the spot and had immediately caught the respondent. The team members had disclosed their identities to the respondent, and the panch witness had recovered the bribe amount of Rs.100/- from back pocket of the accused and compared the serial number of those GC notes with the serial number mentioned in pre-raid report which had tallied. Thereafter, the right-hand wash and back pant pocket wash of accused was taken separately in colorless solution of Sodium Carbonate which had turned pink and was transferred in four small bottles. The accused/respondent was then arrested for demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.100/- from the complainant vide a separate arrest-cum-personal search memo.

3. The respondent was produced before the learned Trial Court and copy of chargesheet under section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to him to his satisfaction. Thereafter, the respondent was charged for offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13 (2) of P.C. Act, 1988. The respondent had pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges and had claimed trial.

4. By way of impugned judgement dated 06.01.2010, the learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record, had acquitted the respondent in the present case. The materi