The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 23.06.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Kashmir. The appellant-accused faced trial for commission of offence under Section 5 (2) P.C.Act read with Section 161 RPC arising out of FIR No. 29/1998 registered with the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir and held guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for offence under Section 5 (2) P.C.Act Act as well as for offence under Section 161 RPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. The appellant was also held liable to pay fine of Rs.2500/- each for aforesaid offences and in case of default of payment of fine the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant shall be referred to as accused in the appeal in hand for discussion purposes.

2. The respondent has appeared in the appeal and contested the same.

3. The brief facts leading to the challan are that Vigilance Organization Kashmir received information through letter from Dy. Director prosecution that it was learnt through reliable source that some officers/officials of Traffic Police Department are indulging themselves in corrupt practices as they demand money from the drivers of some vehicles in presence of senior officers at different places in Jammu as well as in Kashmir province and particularly on National Highway and this resulted into registration of FIR No. 29/1998 with Police Station V.O.K on 12.05.1998.

4. In the case in hand, the Investigating Officer with Executive Magistrate and other team members left for Dalgate Traffic Point in private minibus No. 4283/JK01. The accused was found at Dalgate crossing managing the traffic. In order to lay trap, the driver of the minibus PW-Mohd. Ashraf Bhat was handed over two currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination each and was required to pay the currency notes, signed by the Executive Magistrate, to the traffic personnel on demand as entry fee by the accused. The accused stopped the vehicle-minibus, demanded bribe and amount is stated to have been paid by the driver in the traffic booth and was caught red handed while receiving bribe amount from the driver and the money was recovered and sizure memo prepared of seized currency notes as EXPWMR-1. The investigation resulted into presentation of challan.

5. The charges were framed against the accused under Section 5 (2) P.C.Act read with Section 161 RPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried by the court. The prosecution produced evidence in support of its case. On closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied the charges. No evidence was produced in defence. It is profitable to give brief statements of prosecution witnesses before analyzing their statements.

6. PW-Mohd. Ramzan Rather is the Special Tehsildar Recovery and is part of the investigation and attended the office of Vigilance Organization on 12.05.1998. The witness had signed the two currency notes of denomination of Rs.50/- and noted the numbers of the currency notes. As per the witness, the minibus was parked on the left side of the road. The accused asked the driver that vehicle could not be parked there and then driver proceeded towards the traffic booth. Two Inspectors from the Vigilance Department also came down from the minibus and reached traffic booth. He also visited the spot. The accused was searched and from the right side pocket of the pant of the accused two notes were recovered and were the same which were signed by him. The seizure memo of personal search of accused was prepared and signed by him and is marked as EXPW-MR. The witness identifies the notes in question. As per the witness, no document with regard to the proceedings taken in the Vigilance Office was prepared. He was sitting on the right side of the minibus and on the back side of the driver seat. The witness does not know whether the recove