JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of sentence dt. 28.11.15 may kindly be quashed and setaside and the accused-appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges leveled against him.”

2. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the judgment, dated 28.11.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No. 46/2008, whereby the accused appellant Mohanlal was convicted for the offence under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and awarded a sentence of 1 year S.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo an imprisonment of 1 month S.I.

3. At the outset, this Court takes note of the fact that the appellant, Mohan Lal S/o Shri Narayan Ji Jatiya has expired and the application to take his legal heir on record, namely Smt. Sumitra Bai W/o Mohan Lal, was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 25.08.2020 (in the present appeal).

4. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that complainant, Ramprasad lodged a written report, at Ex/P/10, at the Anti – Corruption Department, Chittorgarh alleging therein that the accused, Mohanlal demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,500/- from the complainant for the purpose restoring the electricity connection at the complainant’s farm, to which the complainant at first acquiesced and paid Rs. 2,000/- but that the accused allegedly sought an additional Rs. 600/-, upon which the accused lodged the said report. Upon the receipt of such a complaint, the concerned A.C.D. authorities arranged the trap proceedings; subsequent to which an F.I.R. was registered and the accused was taken into custody and a charge sheet was filed against him for the charges as aforementioned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below has erred in passing the impugned order of conviction against the accused, despite the fact that the offences levelled him have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the entire story of the prosecution is concocted, and that the reason the accused sought the money is because 4 workers were engaged, at the cost of RS. 150/- per day, to cut the branches of the tree which was interfering in the electricity connection line of the complainant, and that when the accused was recovering the amount for the same; it was incorrectly held to be as if he were receiving a bribe.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the testimony of P.W. 5, the complainant, Ramprasad, is doubtful and was falsely relied upon by the learned Court below, to convict the accused vide the impugned order.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the impugned order of conviction passed by the learned Court below was well reasoned, and passed after taking into due consideration the evidences placed on the record and looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

10. At the outset, this Court thinks it necessary and fit to keep into consideration, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with regard to the gravity and seriousness of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the catastrophic effect that such offences, if left unchecked, have on a democratic society, in State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88.

Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

“Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to malignancies the polity of country