The judgment underscores the requirement for clear and consistent evidence to prove the elements of bribery, and the high standard for overturning an acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. Present Appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rajkot in Special (ACB) Case No. 5 of 1992 dated 31-01-2006.

2. It is the case, where the respondent was working as Assistant Engineer in Town Planning Department of Rajkot Municipal Corporation, allegedly demanded bribe for the purpose of passing the plan of construction.

3. The Complainant; Mukundbhai Govindbhai Dudhatra has moved file for passing of the plan on behalf of Dipak Chunilal Doshi on 11-04-1991 and amount of bribe of Rs. 2500/- was demanded on 01-08-1991 and the bribe amount was received by the accused on 02-08-1991.

4. The incident had resulted into registration of F.I.R. No. 14/1991 with Rajkot ACB Police Station and filing of Charge-sheet No. 5 of 92 on 08-06-1992 for the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in support of the prosecution, the State had examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 10 documentary evidences, which was sufficient to establish the charge against the respondent.

6. It is submitted that prosecution witness Nos. 2 and 4 are the panch-witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the trap was successful trap in all respect and therefore, evidence of the panch-witnesses, who were party to the trap proceedings, are relevant and this witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the trial Court has failed to attach due weightage to the evidence of these witnesses.

7. It is submitted that the Court ought to have taken into consideration relevant aspect that the State Government has granted sanction to prosecute after considering all the relevant record and that sanction is also exhibited vide Exh-73.

8. It is submitted that the Court ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of PSI, Sharma, who was the Police Inspector at ACB Police Station at the time of offence and had lodged the complaint against the accused person and had also arranged the trap, which was successful and therefore, this evidence is required to be treated as corroborative piece of evidence. It is submitted that despite sufficient evidence on record, the Sessions Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that there was no demand for bribe or acceptance, though the trap was successful.

9. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent–accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of bribery against the respondent. The essential ingredients of offence of bribery i.e. initial demand, demand soon before acceptance, acceptance and recovery are not proved. It is submitted that there is no recovery of tainted notes from the body (person) of the respondent. Tainted notes (25 notes of Rs. 100 = Rs. 2500) are found in a drawer of table in diary. It is submitted that Anthracine powder test applied on hands and fingers of the respondent is negative. It is submitted that no marks/sign of powder are found. It is submitted that there is serious contradiction with respect to ‘demand soon before acceptance’. The testimony of complainant and panch no. 1 doesn’t prove the demand before acceptance. There is nothing to show that accused has demanded the bribe and complainant has put the tainted notes inside drawer. The table/desk of accused is situated along with other desk of officers. The possibility can not be ruled out that tainted notes are put inside drawer without knowledge of accused. The raiding officer has asked panch no. 1 to open up drawer directly without stated by anyone that bribe amount is put inside drawer.

10. It is submitted that the panchas are not independent. Both panch are government servant and are fear of inquiry. Panchas have not given statement before police. Further more panch