JUDGMENT :

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

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be accepted and allowed. Judgment dated 25.8.2004 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur in Cr. Case No.166/97 State V/s Sugan Chand Gurjar, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.”

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant are that on 20.08.1995, Jai Singh lodged a written report before State Bureau of Investigation, Bhilwara to that effect that he had purchased a bus bearing license No. RJY-3013, which was on the route from Gangapur to Bheem on 15.8.1995, and although it was travelling on the right side, another bus, bearing license plate no. RJ-06-P-0261 came from the opposite side, and that the driver was under the influence of alcohol and driving in a rash and negligent manner. Subsequently, that he lodged a case of accident at Police Station, Kareda, and that the matter was investigated by the appellant, SHO Sugan Chand, whom the complainant met and requested to get his vehicle released. And that, it is averred that he told the complainant that if he wanted to get the bus released with his help, then the complainant would have to give him an amount of Rs. 2,000/-to him of which Rs. 1,000/-was allegedly given to him pre – trap proceedings. And that when trap proceedings were conducted on 21.8.1995, and it is averred that he was caught red handed during the same. Subsequently, after seeking permission, a challan was filed against him.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on 15.9.1995, the day on which the buses met with an accident, complainant Jai Singh, and Chawand Singh seeking to repair the bus, requested the appellant-SHO for a loan of Rs. 1,000/-Furthermore, that the complainant was in fact no the registered owner of the bus, as aforementioned, as he did not have any documents to prove ownership. And that the same was mentioned in the report so lodged, which is the reason why the complainant has foisted this false case against the accused-appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the alleged trap was conducted on 21.8.1995 where as the bus in question, was already released on a ‘supurdginama’. And that the appellant-SHO in his report, on 19.8.1995, had already stated therein, that the vehicle be released to the registered owner, and that as the complainant was not the registered owner, he has lodged the false case against him.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the ingredients of the demand are not made out, as some of the witnesses stated that the alleged bribe was made for release of vehicle and giving no objection note in the report, while other witnesses stated that the appellant demand money for damages/compensation of accident.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes, and submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and an appreciation of the evidences on record.

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

8. 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 leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spre