JUDGMENT :- The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Damoh in Special Case No. 7/92 acquitting the respondent under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act ').

2. In brief the case of prosecution is that respondent Dalchand Yadav was serving on the post of Tahsildar in the year 1989 and is posting was at Tendukheda. During that period complainant Premchand Jain submitted an application to get the Patta of the Government land given to him, renewed to the S. D. O. On the said application, Sub-Divisional Officer directed respondent to submit a report. It is the further case of prosecution that in order to give report/recommendation in favour of complainant, the respondent made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- from him and out of which earlier Rs. 800/- were paid by the complainant to the respondent and for the balance amount of Rs. 200/- gave assurance that the same shall be paid to the respondent later on. Since, the complainant did not want to give the balance amount of Rs. 200/- towards bribe, he submitted a written complaint on 7th March, 1989 before the Special Police Establishment at Jabalpur on the basis of which a trap was arranged.

3. In order to give positive result to the trap, two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each covered by phenolphthalein powder were given to the complainant and their numbers were noted down in the Panchanama. Thereafter, the trap party arrived in the Court of respondent where it is said that complainant gave those currency notes of Rs. 200/-to the respondent and thereafter gave signal to the members of the trap party. On seeing the signal, the members of the trap party entered inside the Court room of respondent and caught hold of his hands and they were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate. On washing of the hands, the solution turned to dirty pink colour. But the currency notes were not recovered from the possession of respondent. Thereafter, when the search was made, the currency notes were found lying behind the curtain of the window of his Court room, Their numbers were tallied with the number of the trap panchanama which were found to be the same.

4. The investigation agency thereafter investigated the case. After the investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge who framed charge punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, which the appellant denied and requested for the trial.

5. The prosecution thereafter examined its witnesses and exhibited the documents. The specific defence of the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. is that he did not take any illegal gratification. The respondent also submitted written statement under Section 233(2) of Cr. P. C. and gave explanation. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence came to hold that the respondent did not commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually acquitted him from all the charges by the impugned judgment.

6. In this manner the present appeal has been filed by the State of M.P. assailing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge.

7. The contention of Shri Modh, learned Dy. Advocate General for appellant/State is that there is overwhelming evidence in the case holding the respondent to be guilty of the offences for which he was charged. By inviting my attention to the statement of the witnesses as well as the seizure memo of the currency notes and also the seizure memo of the hand wash solution of the respondent, it has been argued that since the hand wash solution of respondent turned to dirty pink, it can be inferred that the respondent accepted the currency notes covered by phenolphthalein powder and therefore the learned Special Judge erred in acquitting the respondent.

8. On the other hand, Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document