The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving both demand and acceptance for convicting a person under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, Section 5(2). The judgment also emphasized that mere recovery of money does not prove the charges of illegal gratification.

The instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 30.12.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, by virtue of which the accused/respondent has been acquitted from the commission of offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 read with Section 161 RPC, on the following grounds :

(a) That order/judgment impugned in appeal is against the law and facts of the case, as such is required to be set aside.

(b) That the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu has mis-appreciated the evidence and misconstrued the law attracted to the facts of the present case, as such the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside on this score also.

(c) That the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu by ordering acquittal of the accused (respondent) has committed grave error in law which has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment.

(d) That the prosecution has successfully proved the allegations levelled against the respondent, and the oral and documentary evidence produced during the trial has undoubtedly established the commission of alleged offences by the respondent, but even then the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, has ordered his acquittal.

2. Briefly the prosecution case before the trial Court was that on 25.11.1998 the complainant namely Jagdish Chander S/o Balwant Rai R/o House No.40-B Bakshi Nagar, Jammu appeared in the Vigilance Organisation and lodged a written complaint alleging therein that he had applied for issuance of a learning driving licence from the RTO Office, Jammu and on 20.11.1998 he handed over the application form enclosing therein with medical fitness certificate to Shri. Rajiv Kumar, clerk posted in RTO’s Office Jammu. After he had deposited the requisite fee for the purpose, the said clerk delayed the issuance of the licence on one pretext or the other. On 24.11.1998 when the complainant again approached the said clerk Rajiv Kumar requesting for the licence, he demanded rupees 200/- as illegal gratification and asked the complainant to come on the next day. The complainant reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe amount. He further alleged in his complaint that there was a large scale corruption prevailing in RTO’s Office Jammu. Officers/Official in the said office were openly demanding bribe for issuance of learner driving licence, registration certificate etc. Some civilian persons were also involved in this racket and they in connivance with the officers/officials of RTO’s office Jammu indulge in such type of corrupt practice. The complainant also presented Rs.200/- (Two currency note of Rs.100/- denomination) before the vigilance authority. On this, the instant case was registered and the investigation taken up. A trap party headed by Sh. U.K. Aima, Dy. S.P. Vigilance Organisation was constituted by SP, Central to lay a trap on the accused, if he accepted the bribe money. In order to verify the other allegations levelled in the complaint four more vigilance teams were constituted to simultaneously conduct raids to other branches of the RTO’s office. Each vigilance team was accompanied by an independent witness whose services were requisitioned through their Heads of Department. Sh. Ab. Hamid Mir, Dy. Commissioner Provident Fund, Labour Department J&K, Jammu was associated with the trap team headed by Sh. U.K. Aima, Dy.S.P. The complainant narrated the whole story before the members of the trap party including the independent witness and also produced Rs.200/- of hundred rupees denomination before the said team. Independent witness noted down the numbers of these two currency notes on a separate paper and preserved the paper with him. Thereafter, the currency notes were dusted with phenolphthalein powder in the presence of the independent witness and were handed over to the complainant for passing on the same to the accused on his demand. Demonstration was conducted on spot and the solution was seize