JUDGMENT :

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

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to send for the record of the lower court, peruse the same and after perusal, quash the convictions/sentences passed against the appellant, acquit him or pass any other orders that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the lower Court, dated 27.02.2002, passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur convicting the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to 3 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 2000/-in default of the payment of the same he was to further undergo a sentence of 3 months S.I.

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court are that on 27.01.1998, a written report was submitted by the complainant, Hanumana @ Hadman Ram, P.W. 11, before the D.S.P. A.C.B. Nagaur alleging that Pannalal, Junior Engineer (J.E.N.) Chitawa was demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/-for installation of 25 KV transformer at his agricultural well, and was adamant not to accept a bribe of less than Rs. 8,000/-And that, on 27.01.1998, the verification of demand of illegal gratification was stated to be made by sending the complainant, P.W. 11, and constable Roop Singh (P.W. 4) along with a tape-recorder on which date, the accused is stated to have accepted Rs. 3000/-from the complainant. And on 04.02.1998 the trap proceedings were held and the accused was allegedly caught red handed with amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/-and was arrested by the concerned police authority and on the basis of such recovery, an F.I.R. was registered against the accused, bearing F.I.R. No. 12/1998 was registered at A.C.B. Jaipur (Chowki Nagaur) for the offences under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was charge-sheeted for the said offences, and charges were framed against him for the above-mentioned offences.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant makes the following contentions:-

4.1 That there is no cogent evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of gratification by the accused-appellant herein. It is the version of the prosecution that the pursuant to the written report, at Ex. P/2, submitted by the complainant, P.W. 11, Hanuman @ Hadman Ram, the verification of demand was made by sending the complainant and Constable Roop Singh, P.W. 4. And that, the complainant subsequently turned hostile and discarded the story of the prosecution. Further, the testimony of Roop Singh, in his examination in chief, reveals that he was not present in the room when the alleged demand was made. And that, the learned Court below has also discarded the testimony deposed by P.W. 4 to the extent that the accused accepted the bribe of Rs. 3000/- from the complainant on 27.01.1998.

4.2 That the tape-recorder which was allegedly used to record the demand made by the accused, was not placed into evidence before the learned Court below, further fortifying the point that no such conversation, as alleged, took place between the complainant and the accused on 27.01.1998.

4.3 Furthemore, the independent motbir witnesses, P.W. 2 Pukhraj and P.W. 3 Gangaram, they too turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution. And that, except the testimony of the official witnesses, there is no other evidence on record to point towards the culpability of the accused.

4.4 That the due procedure for the recovery and seizure of articles was not followed by the investigation agency, discernible from the testimonies given by P.W. 5 Constable Gordhan Singh, and P.W.6 Vijaydan, both of whom were members of the trap party, which reveal that the site report (‘naksha mauka’) after the trap proceedings were conducted, the Site Report so generated