The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt, and unreliable witnesses and misappreciation of evidence can lead to acquittal.

A.N.Jindal, J.

1 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.03.2006, passed by Special Judge, Ferojpur, convicting and sentencing Gurdial Singh appellant-accused (herein referred as the accused) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein referred as the Act).

2 Accused Guridial Singh, was an office Kanungo, holding control of the area of village Mallanwala. Complaint Jarnail Singh owned land measuring 15 acres in the revenue estate of village Mallanwala out of which 8 acres of land is recorded in the name of Iqbal Singh. The land of his cousins adjoins to the land of complaint. Doubting that some encroachment of his land was made by his cousins, two months prior to the occurrence, he had moved an application before Tehsildar, Zira, for demarcation, who marked it to the accused. The complainant met him 2/3 times in this connection but the matter was put off by the accused. On 16.02.2001, he had again met the accused for demarcation. On this, he stated that the same could not be done without payment of Rs. 4,000/- as illegal gratification. However, the complainant showed his helplessness, at this, the matter was settled at Rs. 1500/-. The complainant further told that he was not having ready money with him. At this, the accused responded that he should come to his office on 19.02.2001 alongwith bribe money and then he would go to his fields for demarcation. Since the complainant was reluctant to pay the bribe money, therefore, he met Balkar Singh, who advised him to complain about the same to the Vigilance Department. As such, the complainant alongwith Balkar Singh, shadow witness, went to the office of DSP Sukhdev Singh and got recorded his statement Ex.PB, on the basis of which FIR was recorded. DSP Sukhdev Singh, after treating the currency notes as handed over by the complainant to him, also recorded the numbers of the same in the memo and handed back to the complainant for paying the same to the accused on demand and not to shake hands with him before or after payment. Demonstration of the solution was done by the Investigating Officer and the solution was destroyed. The Investigating Officer washed his hands with the soap and water. Balkar Singh was nominated as a shadow witness. Official witnesses namely Gurdip Singh, SDO Tejinderpal, Draftsman, both of Public Health Department were also associated in the raiding party. In the way, they were introduced with the complainant and the shadow witness and were told about the purpose and process. Accordingly, all of them went to the office of the accused- Kanungo whereas the said members of the raiding party remained behind. In the meantime, on receiving the signal, DSP Sukhdev Singh alongwith other members of the raiding party reached the office where accused was sitting in his chair. After revealing his identity, the accused was inquired about the receipt of the bribe money, whereupon the accused started apologizing. He was holding two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each in his left hand and produced the same before the DSP Sukhdev Singh. On comparison numbers of the currency notes tallied with the memo already prepared. Thereafter, DSP Sukhdev Singh procured a glass of water in which Sodium Carbonate was poured and a solution was prepared. On the instructions of DSP Sukhdev Singh, the official witnesses dipped their hands one by one in the said solution but its colour did not change. When in the same solution, the hands of the accused were got washed then the colour of the solution became pink. The said solution was transferred into the nip which was duly sealed by DSP Sukhdev Singh with his seal bearing impression "SS". On personal search, a sum of Rs. 340/-, identity card and the wrist watch were recovered from the accused, which were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Then the inquiry about demarcation appl