The main legal point established is the necessity of proving demand and recovery for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as the limited power of the appellate court to reverse an order of acquittal.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant- State against the judgment impugned, dated 31.10.2018 whereby the learned Sessions Court acquitted the respondent for the charges under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Appellate- State are that on 06.07.2009, complainant Natwar Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh Panwar submitted a written report before the Addl. A.C.B. Chowki, Bhilwara to the effect that his father owned land in the village, which was situated at Arazi No. 2538 to 2599, but that there was some error/deficiency which required to be corrected. And that, when they sought to rectify the same, the Halka Patwari Shri Rajesh, Patwar Mandal Pashal demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/-, which demand the complainant did not wish to satisfy. Following the said report, trap proceedings were arranged and during the course of the same, recovery of the tainted currency was made from the possession of the respondent (Rajesh Kumar), whereupon he was arrested. Subsequently, the respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences under the Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. About 17 prosecution witnesses were produced and examined during the course of trial; after trial, vide the impugned judgment, the respondent was acquitted.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned Court below has erred in acquitting the respondent of the charges so framed against him, and that despite the fact that the respondent was caught red handed, and that as per the verification of the demand transcription the accused called the complainant at Gayatri Ashram and during the course of the trap proceedings, the bribe money was recovered from the respondent.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the motive for the demand of the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- has also been proven, the same being to make rectifications in the land records, pertaining to the lands owned by the complainant's father.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the learned Sessions Court has passed the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and appreciating the evidences placed on record before it.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that a false case was foisted upon the respondent, and that the learned Court below rightly appreciated that although the recovery of the tainted currency notes was made from the respondent, the same was made towards a repayment of a loan advanced by the respondent to the complainant. Furthermore, the respondent did not in fact have any work, with respect to the complainant or his father, pending with him nor was he in any capacity to assist the complainant or his father in the rectification/correction of their land records, and that the same was conveyed to the complainant.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent thus submitted that the learned Court below has passed the impugned judgment with cogent and logical reasoning viz. the 65B certificate, a mandatory statutory requirement under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 was not produced by the prosecution in connection with call records pertaining to the conversation between the complainant and the accused Halka Patwari, at P/32, which were brought into evidence before the Court, and that it would not be appropriate nor in accordance with law, to use it as the basis to determine whether demand for any illegal gratification was made by the accused to the complainant or father/brother, and that for the same reason the Court also did not consider the evidence of the recording created using the tape recorde