Pankaj Bhandari, J.

1. The accused-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 19.06.2006 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Jaipur whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly state the facts of the case that the complainant-Hukum Chand lodged a written report Ex.P-3 to the Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (First) alleging therein that his Tata Sumo bearing registration No. RJ-17-C-0891 collided with a camel cart on 23.4.1999 when he was going from Jaipur to Mehandipur Balaji. It was alleged in the FIR that his vehicle was seized by the police and the investigation of the FIR was handed over to the appellant-Pukhraj. It was further mentioned in the FIR that Pukhraj demanded Rs. 5,000/- for release of the vehicle and the complainant gave Rs. 1,000/- on 24.5.1999, thereafter case diary was not sent and he had to give Rs. 2,400/-. It was alleged that till balance Rs. 1,600/- is given mechanical inspection would not be conducted. The Anti- Corruption Bureau for secret verification of the demand gave a tape recorder to the complainant and Sultan Singh was sent with the complainant for demand verification. A raid was conducted on 5.5.1999 and the amount of Rs. 1,600/- were recovered from the Quarter belonging to the accused-appellant. The Bureau after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.

3. Appellant was charged under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. As many as 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, Accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and five witnesses were examined as DW-1 to DW-5 in defence by the appellant.

4. The Court below after hearing the arguments, convicted the accused-appellant, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that decoy-Hukum Chand PW-2 and the witnesses to the trap proceeding PW-3 Ratan Verma and PW-5 Heera Lal have been declared hostile and as such the Court below has erred in convicting the appellant.

6. It is also contended that the demand verification transcript was not proved by any witness and the Court below has also not relied upon the demand verification and as such there was no material against the accused to bring home the conviction. It is also contended that no work was pending with the appellant and in the case diary it was mentioned that the mechanical inspection has been done and the police has no objection if the vehicle is released on Supurdginama.

7. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi, 2016 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 400 : 2016 RCC (SC) 32 wherein the complainant turned hostile and the panch witnesses were at some distance so they were not able to hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. The Apex Court held that mere production of the tainted money recovered from the accused, sans the proof of demand no guilt in the offence can be established.

8. Reliance has also been placed on P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2016 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 895 : 2015 (10) SCC 152 wherein the Apex Court held that mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, the proof of demand, ipso facto, reiterated, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act.

9. Reliance has also been placed on B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 792 : 20