In bribery trap cases, proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of gratification is essential; mere recovery of tainted notes insufficient amid material witness contradictions, absent shadow witness corroboration, and prior official entries negating motive.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2012 and order of sentence dated 31.08.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted and sentenced as under: -

(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). It was asserted that the father of the informant, Amit Mankotia (PW1), had expired one year before the incident. He had taken a loan, and Amit Mankotia (PW1) repaid it. He asked the Patwari (the accused) to make an entry regarding the repayment of the loan, but the Patwari declined and demanded Rs. 500/-. The informant paid the money. The informant requested the accused to enter the mutation in his favour, but the accused demanded Rs. 3,000/- for it. The informant asked the accused to reduce the money, and the accused told him that the amount could not be reduced. He asked the informant to pay the money by the evening and promised him to carry out the mutation. The informant made a complaint (Ext.PW1/A) to the police. The police registered the FIR (Ext. PW13/A). Dy. SP Surender Sharma (PW13) investigated the matter. He associated Vivek Mahajan (PW2) as a witness. He demonstrated the mixing of phenolphthalein powder with sodium bicarbonate powder to Vivek Mahajan (PW2), Sanjeev Kumar (PW3), and Amit Mankotia (PW1). He prepared a memo (Ext.PW1/B). The informant produced six currency notes of Rs. 500/- each and Dy. SP Surender Sharma (PW13) treated them with phenolphthalein powder. He handed them over to the informant after noting down their numbers in the memo (Ext.PW1/C). He sent the informant and the shadow witness to Patwarkhana with the direction that money should be delivered only on demand. The police followed the informant and the shadow witness. However, the accused was not found in the Patwarkhana. The informant telephoned the accused, who revealed that he had gone to Patwarkhana at Panjawar. The informant and the shadow witness went to the Panjawar, where the accused was present. The informant went to the accused, and the police party remained outside. The accused asked the informant to come out in the verandah, where the informant handed over Rs. 3000/- to the accused. The accused counted the currency notes and kept them in his pocket. The shadow witness signalled the police, and the police reached the spot. Constable Anant Kumar and Constable Jitender Kumar caught the wrists of the accused. The hands of the accused were washed. A solution of Sodium bicarbonate was prepared and added to the hand wash, and the solution turned pink. Memo (Ext.PW1/D) was prepared. The hand wash was put in a nip (Ext.P1), and the nip was sealed. The police associated Badal Singh and Tilak Raj. The accused took out Rs. 3000/- (Ext.P2 to Ext.P7) from the plastic Nawar of the cot lying in the verandah. Their serial numbers were tallied and were found to be the