Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere identification in recordings is insufficient without corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. - The present appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') has been preferred by the State against judgment dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) - 05 (ACB), (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Corruption Case No. 20/2013 arising out of FIR No. 383/2007 registered at PS Dabri. Vide the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2015, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act') punishable under Section 13 (2) of the said Act.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as under:

i. One Chetan Prakash Sharma filed a writ petition, i.e., W.P.(CRL) 1897/2005 before this Court stating that he had recorded videos of police personnel and other government officials taking bribe from bootleggers. Vide order dated 12.12.2005, a learned Division Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner of Police to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police conducted a vigilance enquiry and the present FIR was registered.

ii. The complainant's statement was recorded on 07.05.2007, wherein he stated that he wanted to expose corruption in the Police Department. He stated that in August 2005, one Daya Shankar met him and informed him that he was a bootlegger and some police officials had been forcibly extracting money from him and forcing him to sell illicit liquor. He further told the complainant that whenever he stopped selling illicit liquor, police officials will name him in false cases. The said Daya Sharma sought the complainant's help and the complainant came up with a plan to video graph police personnel while receiving money. Accordingly, the complainant videographed about 10 police officials and deposited the video cassette before this Court. On 27.01.2006, the complainant joined the vigilance enquiry conducted by Sh. J.L. Sahni, ACP, Vigilance. The video cassette prepared by him was played in his presence and he identified the police officials recorded in the said video.

iii. On the basis of the statement given by the complainant Chetan Prakash Sharma, the present FIR was registered. The video cassette was sent to the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Chandigarh for analysis and it was found that there was no intentional alteration or tampering with the said cassette.

iv. Upon completion of investigation, sufficient material was found against 09 of the police officials recorded in the video and a chargesheet was filed qua them for offences under Sections 7 /13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act.

v. After considering the evidence led by the State as well as the accused persons, the learned Special Judge, passed the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents.

3. Learned APP for the State submitted that the complainant Chetan Prakash Sharma (PW-4) started a sting operation himself and made an audio-visual recording of the respondents where they were seen receiving a bribe. It was submitted that the complainant witnessed the proceedings himself and identified the respondents before the learned Trial Court as the persons in the video. It was submitted that after Daya Shankar (PW-7) informed the complainant about the illegalities, the complainant (PW-4) witnessed the events which were recorded by himself and therefore, the evidence given by him cannot be dismissed as hearsay.

4. Learned APP for th