The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification with substantive evidence, as emphasized by various judicial precedents.

M.K. Hanjura, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.08.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Srinagar, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of six months for the commission of an offence under Section 161 RPC, and in default of the payment of fine to undergo a simple imprisonment for three months, the appellant has filed an appeal before this Court challenging its virus on the grounds, inter alia, that the judgment under appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is against the facts and the legal position evolved in terms of the well-established principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court. The demand and the recovery of the bribe money are the indispensable essentials required to be proved for the commission of offences under Section 5 (2) PC Act or 161 RPC. No legal evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove the demand and recovery of the tainted money. The complainant has not supported the prosecution version before the Court. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. There is no other evidence on record to support and corroborate the prosecution case. The judgment recorded by the trial Court is based on surmises, conjectures and presumptions which is against the canons of law. The learned trial Court has not considered the material and the vital evidence that would establish the innocence of the appellant. The Court below has acted dehors the established rules and principles of law and has directed itself in a manner which is not permissible under law. In the end it has been urged that the judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant namely Bashir Ahmad Koul S/o Haji Assadullah Koul R/o Wandihama, Lar, Ganderbal, filed a written complaint before the authorities of the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, Srinagar, stating therein that he was working as a Store Keeper in the office of the CA & PD Department, situated at Ganderbal. He was awaiting his posting orders and in this regard, the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 15000/- from him as bribe. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was decided and settled to be paid in advance. The authorities of the Vigilance Organization took cognizance of his complaint and registered an FIR bearing No. 121/2011 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 5 (2) Prevention Act, 2006 and Section 161 RPC with which the investigation commenced. A team was constituted to lay a trap on the accused. The services of an independent witness were sought from the Social Welfare Officer, Kashmir Srinagar. A Junior Assistant of the said Department, Shri Shujat Hussain was deputed to associate in the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. During the course of investigation an amount of Rs. 10,000/- consisting of twenty currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/-each were produced before the trap team by the complainant which he intended to pay as illegal gratification to the accused on demand. The currency notes produced by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder. These were handed over to the independent witness immediately. The independent witness after counting the currency notes noted down their numbers and subsequently put these notes in the pocket of the complainant, who was advised to pay them to the accused on demand. The complainant was advised not to touch the currency notes till such time that the accused demands the bribe from him at the spot. Before proceeding on spot, a practical demonstration was conducted to show the effect of phenolphthalein powder smeared on the currency notes produced by the complainant. A solution of sodium carbo