JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.”

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction, dated 17.11.2000, passed by the Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Cases) whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo 3 months R.I.

3. The sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2000 in S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 458/2000.

4. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the record are that on 24.07.1997, complainant Munshiram S/o Bahadurchand Arora R/o Sri Ganganagar lodged a written report at the A.C.B. Sri Ganganagar, stating therein that he had sought a copy (nakal) of a particular land record (jamabandi), for which he approached the Halka Patwari, being the present appellant, to which it was alleged that the present appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/-. And that the complainant approached the concerned authorities; upon which, motbir witnesses were arranged and in the presence of the complainant and the motbirs, phenolphtalein powder was smeared on the two currency notes of Rs. 50 each and the notes were accordingly marked, subsequently the trap proceedings were carried out; wherein upon the signal of the complainant, the appellant was apprehended by the concerned A.C.B. officials finding that the said tainted currency was recovered from the appellant’s house, from a table, kept under his eye-glasses. And that, subsequently, he was charged for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. And that, upon trial, the learned Court below, vide the impugned judgment, found the appellant guilty for the offences under the aforesaid sections of the Act of 1988.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below has gravely erred in passing the impugned judgment of conviction against the appellant. It is submitted that for an offence to be made out under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, demand of an illegal gratification coupled with the subsequently recovery of the same has to be proven against the accused. And that, both the said statutory requirements are absent in the present case.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce the tape recording of the trap proceedings before the learned Court below, despite the fact that it was used in the trap proceedings and the same was sealed and placed in the maalkhana, of which a fard was also prepared, and yet it was not brought on the record. And that, the learned Court below ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding the same. And that, the learned Court below has thus incorrectly found that a demand for illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- was made by the appellant.

7. Learned counsel also submitted that the factum of recovery of the alleged currency notes from the residence of the appellant is also without basis, as the appellant was not caught red-handed. And that, while the appellant had gone into another room on the day of the trap proceedings, upon finding that the pen he was using, had run out of ink and required a ‘refill’. And that, the currency notes were recovered from the table, under his eyeglasses, which the appellant had, of his own volition, kept the money.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an attempt to falsely implicate the appellant because he was not cooperating with the requests of the complainant, regarding providing him with a copy of the jamaba