Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment, dated 09.09.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Corruption Case No. 16-CC/7 of 2012, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the ‘PC Act’).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under: 

2(a). The accused Hari Saran was posted as Block Forest Officer, Khodari Majari in the year 2010 and during that time Shri Shabir Ali (complainant) was engaged for felling and sawing of timber and Killour Majari beat was open for felling trees from the private land. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused used to contact the landowners and manage the permission from the forest department and also used to assign job of felling trees and marketing to the complainant. The accused prepared one permission in the name of Ram Lal, but three mango trees were got felled from the land of Dhanbir from the complainant by him. On 04.05.2010 the accused, in lieu of permission and for affixing export hammer on the timber, demanded Rs.3000/- from the complainant. The complainant was called by the accused in his office, but he was unwilling to pay the amount of bribe, therefore, he reported the matter to the vigilance team headed by Inspector Madan Lal. Inspector Madan Lal met him at Killour Majari, where the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded, whereupon FIR was registered at Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau & State Vigilance, Nahan. The complainant was given pre-trap demonstration of how to use phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate and subsequently the complainant produced a currency note of Rs.1000/- and four currency notes of Rs.500/-. After treating these notes with phenolphthalein powder and noting down the serial number of these notes, the same were returned to the complainant and he was directed to hand over these notes to accused on demand and not to shake hand with anyone. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the accused alongwith Shri Atik Mohammad (shadow witness), who was instructed to give signal after bribe money was paid to the accused. The complainant and shadow witness went to a tea stall near the office of the accused, where the accused met and demanded bribe money from the complainant. The complainant gave a sum of Rs.3000/- to the accused and in turn the accused handed over permission to the complainant. On the signal of the shadow witness-Shri Atik Mohammad, the vigilance officials, who were already in position near the tea stall, entered the tea stall. The vigilance officials disclosed their identity to the accused and the accused was caught hold of by them from his both wrists and he was made to wash his hands with plain water, but its color did not change. When the hand wash was mixed with solution of sodium carbonate, it turned into pink. The accused, on being asked, produced the bribe money from his front pocket of shirt and serial number of the currency notes were tallied with the serial numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memo. Thereafter, the pocket wash of the shirt of the accused was taken with plain water and its color did not change, but when this pocket wash was mixed with the solution of sodium carbonate, it turned into pink. Thereafter, the investigation ensued and during the investigation various documents relating to the case were taken into possession. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The accused did not plead guilty of the charges framed against him and claimed trial.

4. In order to pr