Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt to establish conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. By way of impugned judgment dated 08.02.2007, the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') convicted the appellant for offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Criminal Case No. 26/2004 and sentenced him as under :-

2. Succinctly stated, the facts apposite are that on 06.08.2003, complainant Digvijay Singh filed a written report before the Anti Corruption Bureau stating therein that he is trader of wheat and about two months back, his stock of wheat loaded in truck was seized by the police. Upon showing all the documents to the District Magistrate, Dungarpur, he ordered the truck to be released. However, despite showing the documents and order, the police inspector demanded illegal gratification and received Rs.8000/-. Thereafter, he again took Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for favouring in the case. However, subsequently, he started demanding money stating that the complainant is doing illegal trading of wheat and demanded Rs.3000/- monthly-. Thereafter, he again demanded money for giving Final report in the case and Rs.3,000/- monthly.

3. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered and trap proceedings were initiated. On 10.08.2003, the trap party reached the police station and recovered the trap money in the sum of Rs.2,000/-. The hands of the petitioner were washed in a solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink.

4. The police registered a case for offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, submitted charge-sheet against accused appellant for offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act before court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Udaipur where charges of the case were framed. The accused denied the charges. Upon denial to all the charges, the learned trial Court put him on trial.

5. The prosecution in support of charges, examined eleven witnesses. Besides occular evidence, various documents were produced by the prosecution, which were exhibited. In defence, accused-appellant produced DW/1 Munshi Ram, DW/2 Vinod Kumar and also exhibited certain documents.

6. After conclusion of the evidence, learned trial Court heard final arguments and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 7 , 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act with sentence mentioned above.

7. Mr. B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate and scrutinize the evidence available on record in correct perspective. It is argued that in this case, PW/3 Digvijay Singh who is the complainant, has turned hostile and does not support the prosecution story. It is the specific case of the appellant that the complainant forcibly put money in the pocket of petitioner and he pushed the complainant away. The version of appellant is supported by the PW/3 Digvijay Singh himself. It is submitted that the conviction against the appellant is only on the basis of alleged bribe which was lying on the ground at the time of trap and not recovered from the conscious possession of the a