The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere possession of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The appellant is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh, vide which he was convicted and sentence in case FIR No.RCCHG2007A0021 dated 17.01.2008 titled as Central Bureau of Investigation v. Gurpreet Singh, as under:-

2. Case Of The Prosecution:

(i). Complainant, Manpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') was the General Secretary of the Punjab Automobile Mechanics Association, Zirakpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Association'). Some land belonging to the Association was illegally encroached upon by some people. In an attempt to resolve the issue peacefully, a meeting was convened between the complainant and other members of the Association with the alleged encroachers. However, the encroachers retaliated with violence, attacking them with stones etc. resulting in injuries and damage to property. Subsequently, FIR No.60/2007 under Sections 452, 380 and 323 of the IPC was lodged at Police Station Zirakpur, against the alleged encroachers. Appellant- Gurpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was the investigating officer of the aforementioned FIR i.e. FIR No.60/2007.

(ii) The accused allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from the complainant in exchange for helping the case of the Association in FIR No.60/2007. As per allegations levelled, the accused called the complainant to Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh, on 17.08.2007 at about 7:00 PM, where the aforementioned demand of Rs. 1 lakh was made, and a threat of adverse consequences was also given, in case the bribe money was not paid. The complainant deferred the decision of paying bribe to the accused on the pretext of consulting the other Association members. On 28.08.2007, the complainant discussed the bribe demand made by the accused with his fellow Association members; a collective decision was then taken to file a complaint against the accused with the CBI.

(iii) Following the decision to file complaint with the CBI, Chandigarh, while en route to the CBI office on 28.08.2007, the accused again contacted the complainant and reiterated his demand of Rs. 1 lakh by asking him to arrange it by evening, failing which the accused reiterated that it would entail adverse consequences. The complainant was also asked by the accused to duly intimate once the money had been arranged and it would be thereafter that he would specify the place and time, where the bribe money was to be handed over to him.

(iv) Subsequently, the complainant wrote a complaint outside the office of the CBI after talking to the accused, and met the Superintendent of Police, CBI, along with Satpal Singh Sodhi. The Superintendent of Police, CBI directed Inspector Jai Singh to look into the matter, which then led to the registration of FIR No.RCCHG2007A0021 dated 17.01.2008 at 1:00 PM on 28.07.2007.

(v) The Superintendent of Police, CBI, directed the complainant to liaise with Inspector Jai Singh, who then constituted a trap team comprising of the following people, including himself as the Trap Laying Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'TLO'); Inspector M.K. Puri (Inspector CBI), Ravinder Kush (Inspector CBI), Balbir Sharma (Inspector CBI), R.S. Gunjiyal (Inspector CBI), Dinesh Kumar (Sub Inspector CBI), Anupam Chauhan (Sub Inspector CBI), Rakesh Chand independent/shadow witness Hakam Singh (independent/shadow witness), Satpal Singh Sodhi and complainant Manpreet Singh. After the constitution of the trap team, the complainant provided 100 notes of 1000 each, which were