The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of tainted money beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, failing which acquittal is justified.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This appeal by the State against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2008 by the Special Judge (ACB), Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2001 by which the respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(c) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The facts of the case is that ACB having received complaint of illegal amount being demanded and received at the Octroi Naka organized a trap by involving a decoy punch accompanying the truck driver from whom such demand was being made.

2.1. It appears that in the present case, the decoy punch had proceeded to Octroi Naka and had paid the amount of Octroi and an additional amount of Rs.20/- which was treated as the bribe money and as the entire amount including the bribe money was tainted. The trap was treated to be successful and i.e. how the respondent came to be charged for the aforesaid offence. The learned APP submitted that considering the evidence of the punch witness who was in accompaniment of the decoy witness, has supported the case of prosecution, and according to his evidence, the Panchnama was proved, and therefore, the prosecution was able to establish on the basis of his version the demand and acceptance as well as the recovery of the tainted money from the respondent-accused.

3. Learned APP submitted that an error is committed by the Special Judge in recording the acquittal on the ground that the Investigating Officer was not examined. It is submitted that as the punch witness has already supported the case of the prosecution and as the Investigating Officer had expired. Still there was no need for any corroboration except for the corroboration by the scientific evidence which was available on the record in the form of FSL report.

4. Learned APP has lastly submitted that though the evidence of the punch witness through whom the Panchnama was established the demand, the Acceptance and the recovery is proved. The Court has not accepted this evidence and has recorded the acquittal.

5. As against this, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that the acquittal is recorded correctly as apart from the punch witness, there are no other witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution and even on the basis of the evidence of the punch witness also, the prosecution is unable to establish the claim of demand and acceptance, particularly, when the decoy witness has not supported the case of the prosecution.

5.1 It is submitted that the evidence of the punch witness cannot be accepted as a gospel truth due to the lack of any corroboration. Not only that, but even from the evidence of this very witness, the entire amount, which is paid by the decoy witness has been explained on the basis of the documents of the prosecution itself. He has referred to Exhibit-24 and 25 which are the receipts, evidencing the payment of Rs.64/- and Rs.40/- independently thereby accounting for a payment of Rs.84/- to the accused person and that even as per the case of the prosecution, the entire amount of Rs.84/- which was tainted amount, was recovered from the accused person and as there is accounting of the aforesaid amount except for Rupee one, the acquittal recorded is justified.

6. Having considered the rival submission of the parties and having perused the documents on record. It is the case of the prosecution as per the charge framed against the respondent vide Exhib