The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the demand and recovery of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the possibility of rebutting the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Mohammad Rafiq, J.-This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Judgment dated 03.05.1983 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Udaipur thereby convicting him for offence under Section 161, IPC and sentencing to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-and also convicting him for offence under Section 5(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”) and sentencing to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-., in default of payment of fine for both the convictions, the appellant was directed to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. Factual matrix of the case are that one Fakirchand resident of Lupdi submitted a written application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pratapgarh (for short “the S.D.M.”) in which he alleged that head constable Shambhu Giri posted in the Police Station, Arnod was threatening him to lodge more complaints against him under Section 110 CrPC and was demanding a sum of Rs. 200/-as illegal gratification. The S.D.M. kept the said application with him. However, one Raghuraj Singh, Advocate went to the house of the S.D.M. during lunch hours and produced before him currency notes of Rs. 200/-. The S.D.M. put his signatures on each of these currency notes which this Raghuraj Singh later gave to Fakirchand. Complainant Fakirchand handed over said currency notes to Head Constable Shambhu Giri. On being informed of this fact, the S.D.M. immediately called Shambhu Giri to his chamber and asked him to produce currency notes which he received from Fakirchand. Accused produced these notes in presence of Raghuraj Singh, Vinodi Lal and one other person and handed over the notes to the S.D.M. These notes contained signatures of the S.D.M. The S.D.M. prepared recovery memo and thereafter sent the same with the currency notes to the Collector, Chittorgarh and also sent an information to the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh. The Anti Corruption Bureau thereoupon registered a case under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(1)(D) and 5(2) of the Act of 1947 and later on submitted a charge-sheet against the accused appellant in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur. The learned Special Judge vide his Judgment dated 03.05.1983 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above. Hence, this appeal.

3. I have heard Mr. Doongar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rameshwar Dave, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.

4. Mr. Doongar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Special Judge has committed illegality in relying upon the alleged recovery of currency notes in as much as the

S.D.M. had no legal authority to hold the trap in relation to the cases under the Act of 1947. He argued that while the application is alleged to have been handed over to the S.D.M. earlier, the currency notes were submitted to him at much later point of time. Case of the prosecution is that the application was submitted to Kuldeep Singh, S.D.M. in his office and thereafter Raghuraj Singh, Advocate went to his residence during lunch hours to give him the currency notes while Fakirchand stood outside. On this aspect however there were number of contradictions in the various statements of the prosecution witnesses. He invited attention of the Court to the statement of P.W. 4 Fakirchand especially to the portion in which he stated that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 500/-whereas in the application submitted before the S.D.M., Fakirchand restricted the demand of the accused to Rs. 200/-only. It has been argued that P.W. 4 Fakirchand in his statement admitted that when he gave Rs. 200/-to accused Shambhu Giri, Rama was also present with him at that time. Mr. Doongar Singh argued that defence of the accused-appellant was that the amount of Rs. 200/-was given to him by Fakirchand for being given to Hari Ram because