JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.-The Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.10.2015 passed by learned Special Judge Anti-corruption, Kashmir, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act [ for short “the PC Act”] and Section 161 of RPC. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the PC Act and to pay a fine of Rs.10000. He has further been sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 161 RPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that complainant-PW Abdul Majeed Misgar approached Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, with a written complaint alleging therein that the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- for processing his GP fund case. On the basis of this complaint, FIR No.16/2004 for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read 5(2) of the PC Act and Section 161 of RPC came to be registered, whereafter, on 26th July, 2000, a trap was laid by the sleuths of Vigilance Organization accompanied by independent witnesses and the complainant. As per prosecution case, the appellant/accused was caught red handed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- from the complainant. The tainted money is stated to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. After investigation of the case, the aforesaid offences were found established against the appellant and charge sheet was laid before the trial court.

3. Charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against the appellant/accused and his plea was recorded. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was directed to examine witnesses in support of the charges. The prosecution examined as many as 12 out of 14 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant/accused and his statement under Section 342 of J&K Cr. P. C. was recoded. The appellant/accused did not enter defence and did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned trial court, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, came to the conclusion that charges against the appellant/accused are established and, accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence came to be passed.

4. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on several grounds but during the course of arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant laid emphasis on two grounds; one that despite the prosecution having failed to establish demand of illegal gratification by the appellant/accused from the complainant during trap proceedings, the learned trial court has on the basis of surmises and conjectures, proceeded to observe that the same stands proved. The other ground that has been emphasized by the learned senior counsel is that the evidence on record as regards the recovery of tainted money from the possession of appellant/accused is contradictory and full of suspicion, which fact has been ignored by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, the grounds of appeal and the record of the trial court.

6. Before coming to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, it would be apt to notice the legal position as regards the ingredients which are necessary to be established for proving an offence 5(1)(d) read 5(2) of the PC Act Section 161 of RPC. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused in such cases, the prosecution has to establish, with cogent and convincing evidence,