JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.07.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge for Anti-Corruption Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 12/95 (122/97) whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; with the following prayer :

“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. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C.V.S. Shekhawat, appearing on behalf of the appellant are that the complainant P.W. 1, Richpal Rai, Gram Sevak, of Panchayat Samiti, Sardar-Shahar and that on 04.11.1994 he submitted a complaint before S.B. Chowki Churu stating therein that the accused, employed at the post of L.D.C. in the office of the District Collector, Churu, and that allegedly he took a bribe from the complainant. And that, it is alleged that the complainant was served a notice under Rule 17 CCA was issued and that despite giving a sufficient reply, a demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made from him, of which he paid Rs. 1000/- initially. And, is alleged that the complainant was repeatedly approached by the appellant with the demand for the balance Rs. 9,000/-. that on 30.11.1993 an order was passed by the concerned Collector to drop the proceedings against the complainant. And that, the complainant subsequently approached the A.C.D. on 05.01.1994 and trap proceedings were arranged, wherein the complainant was given a small tape recorder, two independent witnesses were sent, namely Dilip Kumar and Mazhar Ali were sent along with the complainant, and that he was given currency notes in Rs.100 denomination, upon which certain marks are made by the concerned authorities, and which where also smeared with phenolphthalein powder.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submits that P.W. 2 Dilip Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that he did not witnessed the appellant taking the bribe, nor did he witness a demand for any bribe being made by him. And that, similar testimony was rendered by witnesses, P.W. 5, Shishupal Singh, and P.W. 6, Mahaveer Prasad. And that, certain key witnesses, namely; independent witness Ali Khan, Constable Girdhari Singh, among others, were not examined by the prosecution.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant, employed at the post of LDC did not have any authority to pass any kind of order in the CCA proceedings pending against the complainant, whether favourable or otherwise, for the complainant. This was further corroborated by P.W. 3 Satyanarayan, who was the reader in the Collectorate, Churu.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submits that the recording from the tape recorder utilized in the trap proceedings, was not exhibited nor was any voice sample of either parties taken. And that, the complainant was the sole basis of the conviction by the learned Trial Court, and has ignored the testimonies of the witnesses, as aforementioned, which cast doubt on the version of the prosecution.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submits that some colour, from the phenophthalein smeared currency, was found from the pocket of Bhim Singh, and that this shows that the amount was in fact with him.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments:-

7.1 Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 3 SCC 687

“it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption Under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of i