JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PARIHAR, J.

01. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2004 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti- Corruption Srinagar, Kashmir, whereby the appellant was prosecuted in FIR No. 40/1986 under Section 5/2 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, P.C. Act). Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 5/2 of the P.C. Act. Besides, the appellant was also held guilty of the offence under Section 161 RPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

02. Briefly stated, FIR No. 40/1986 was registered on 15.09.1986 by the Vigilance Organization Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as VOK) on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant. It was alleged that the appellant was approached by the complainant for issuance of a revenue extract, as the complainant intended to transfer 1½ kanals of land. It is alleged that for issuance of the said revenue extract, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/-, which was ultimately scaled down to Rs. 800/-. On the strength of the said complaint, a trap was laid and, in the presence of shadow witnesses, the VOK alleged that the appellant demanded the bribe amount, which the complainant handed over to him. During the trap proceedings, Rs. 700/- was recovered from the person of the appellant, whereas Rs. 100/- was recovered from a fellow Patwari, namely Karan Singh, to whom the appellant is alleged to have handed over the said amount towards satisfaction of some past liability.

03. Consequently, during the trap proceedings conducted on 15.09.1986, the alleged recovery was effected, leading to the arrest of the appellant. Subsequently, the offence under Section 5/2 of the P.C. Act was stated to have been proved against him, on the basis of which, the Trial Court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. The said findings are assailed in the present appeal on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to correctly appreciate the settled legal position. It is contended that neither the demand of bribe was proved nor was there any clinching evidence to establish recovery from the person of the appellant. The complainant did not support the alleged demand, and even the presence of the shadow witness (PW-6) is doubtful, as the said witness nowhere deposed that he had seen the complainant handing over the bribe amount to the appellant. In the absence of proof of demand and recovery, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are manifestly erroneous. It is further contended that the charge-sheet was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Court, without indicating any cogent basis, proceeded merely on surmises and speculation. The mandatory requirements of law were not fulfilled and, therefore, the impugned judgment is unsustainable.

04. The respondent, while supporting the judgment rendered by the Trial Court, argued that not only was the presence of the shadow witness duly proved, but even the complainant, during cross-examination, materially stated that the demand for payment of bribe was made through a broker, namely Habibullah Alaei of Rawalpora. The said broker appeared in the witness box and deposed that the accused had made a specific demand. It was further contended that the appellant had prepared a defective revenue extract, on account of which the complainant faced difficulty in selling his land. Thereafter, on 15.09.1986, the complainant himself approached the appellant and requested issuance of a fresh revenue extract, for which the appellant demanded illegal gratification, initially amounting to Rs. 1,000/-, which was later scaled down to Rs. 800/-. The said amount was recovered during the trap proceedings. It was also argued that there is no contradiction in the testimony of