JUDGMENT :

BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 13.04.2017 passed by the learned Session Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. (36/09) 106/2013 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to suffer maximum punishment of two years’ simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and one year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-for other offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant PW-14 Sohanlal submitted a written complaint Ex.P-5 before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Sri Ganganagar alleging therein that his mother’s so called sister (Not a blood relative), Mrs. Sita Devi had undergone an operation in a government hospital, Suratgarh on 07.12.2007 where she was operated upon by Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal who is the appellant herein. The complainant claimed that Dr. Rajkumar had asked for Rs. 5000/-as illegal gratification, out of which Rs. 2500/-was given to him at the time of operation and then, he demanded the remaining amount from the complainant as his aunt was still admitted in the hospital. However, the complainant did not wish to illegally gratify Dr. Rajkumar and his wish was to ensure that he would be caught red-handed. He filed a complaint with the ACB, Outpost Sri Ganganagar for the same and a trap operation was planned in pursuance thereof.

3. As alleged, upon confidential verification of the facts mentioned in the application through the tape recording, it was revealed that Dr. Rajkumar had received Rs. 1000/-at the time when the alleged recording was made and he further demanded the remaining amount of Rs. 1500/-as illegal gratification. It is alleged that as per the tape recording, the demand of bribe was verified and a transcript of the audio recording was prepared and the cassette was seized & sealed.

4. On the basis of the above-mentioned written complaint, trap proceeding was carried out on 12.12.2007. During the course of the trap proceeding, after receiving the agreed signal from the complainant, the Additional Superintendent of Police entered the room of Dr. Rajkumar along with two witnesses. He found a person sitting on a chair and when he asked the person his name, he replied to the officer that he is known as Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal. It is alleged that the hands of the accused were washed by the members of the ACB in a solution of sodium carbonate upon which his hands turned pink. On further search being made, Rs. 1500/-were recovered from the drawer of the table lying there. After conducting usual investigation, a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was submitted.

5. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and produced thirty three documents in evidence. Upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant. In respect of his claim, two witnesses were examined in defence. After going through oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted the appellant vide judgment dated 13.04.2017. Hence, this criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the appellant has not committed any offence and a false case has been foisted upon him grudgefully. Further, the recovery was also not proved to have been effected from the appellant as the notes were recovered from the drawer of the table and not from the conscious possession of t