The judgment established that the demand of bribe and acceptance of illegal gratification can be proved through corroborative evidence, and the absence of a proper explanation for the possession of bribe money can lead to the presumption of acceptance of the bribe.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.8.2004 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bhind in Special Case No. 2/2002 convicting appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") and thereby sentencing him to suffer R.I. of two years and fine Rs. 1000/-, in default, further R.I. of six months, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that at the relevant point of time appellant-Shivraj Singh Yadav was serving on the post of Patwari of Halka No. 44 in Tahsil Gohad, District Bhind. Father of Rajendra Singh Jatav (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") was a landless person, as a result of which a Patta of 2 bigha and 8 biswa of government land was given to him. After the death of the father of the complainant, the complainant (Rajendra Singh Jatav), his mother Janki Bai and brother Keshav Singh became the government lessee. In order to get that land demarcated, the complainant submitted an application before the Tahsildar Gohad D.K. Bhawasar, who directed the Revenue Inspector Gajendra Singh (PW.4) to get the land demarcated, as a result of which the complainant met to the Revenue Inspector Gajendra Singh at his residence, who told that the complainant should meet appellant-Shivraj Singh Yadav and told him that on 27th or on 28th September, 2001 he should remain present at the spot to get the land demarcated. The complainant thereafter met the appellant at his residence, where appellant made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- from him. The bargaining took place between the complainant and the appellant and the matter was settled for Rs. 800/- and it was directed to the complainant by appellant to come with the bribe money.

3. Since the complainant was not keen enough to give illegal gratification to the appellant, as a result of which he submitted a complaint on 27.9.2001 in the office of Lokayukt, Gwalior, upon which a case was registered against the appellant and the case was entrusted to the Inspector Devendra Singh Kushwaha. Simultaneously a letter was written to the Collector, Gwalior to send and to depute two gazetted officers so that they may be included in the trap party as Panch witnesses. In compliance to the direction of the Lokayukt office, the Collector, Gwalior deputed D.K. Jadhav (PW.1) Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma, Assistant Professor, Ayurvedic and these two officers arrived in the office of Special Police Establishment, Gwalior. After the arrival of these Panch witnesses in the office, they were introduced to the complainant. Thereafter in presence of Panch witness D.K. Jadhav (PW.1), another Panch witness Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma read over the complaint of the complainant in high tone and after hearing its contents the complainant accepted the averments written in the complaint to be true and further admitted that the complaint is written by him.

4. Thereafter on submitting the currency note having denomination of Rs. 500/- and three currency notes having denomination of Rs. 100/- each, (in total Rs. 800/-) by the complainant, phenolphthalein powder was applied on them by Constable Ravindra Singh (not included in the trap party), thereafter the treated currency notes were kept by Head Constable Siyaram Sharma (PW.2) in the right pocket of the shirt of the complainant and he was directed that he should not come in contact with the treated currency notes earlier to handing over the same to the appellant. He was further pacified and directed that after handing over the bribe money to the appellant he will not shake the hands with the appellant and after passing over the bribe money to him he will rub his hand on his head which will be a signal to the members of the trap party that transact