The main legal point established is that demand of illegal gratification is essential for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient without evidence of demand and acceptance.

JUDGMENT

1. Special Police Establishment through SP, Indore has filed the present application under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(Cr.P.C.) for grant of leave to file criminal appeal against the judgment dated 28.12.2016 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act,1988), Jhabua whereby the non-applicants have been acquitted from the charges under sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act' ).

2. As per the prosecution story, in the year 2011-12 in Gram Panchayat Chikliya, Janpad Panchayat, Dandla, District Jhabua the construction work of (i)District Jhabua Community Bhawan estimated cost of Rs.4.65 lakhs,(ii) water tank estimated cost of Rs.4.99 lakhs and (iii) village warehouse building estimated cost of Rs.4.98 lakhs were going on and the non-applicant No.1 being the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat Dandla was the in-charge of supervision and release of fund for the aforesaid work. At the relevant point of time the non-applicant No.2 was working as Peon in the office of non-applicant No.1. At the relevant point of time Smt.Havlibai w/o Partha Muniya was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Chikliya. On 04.09.2012 her husband Shri Partha Muniya ( here in after referred as complainant) made a written complaint in the office of S.P Lokayukt alleging that the aforesaid construction works have been completed and for the purpose of measurement by Sub Engineer and release of the third and final installment of the total cost of construction the nonapplicant No.1 was demanding bribe of Rs.45,000/- from him, he has already given a sum of Rs.10,000/- to him under pressure, however, he does not want to give him bribe amount and wants to caught hold him while taking bribe. The S.P Lokayukt has handed over the case to Yuvraj Singh Chouhan, Inspector, who gave the complainant a voice recorder in order to record the conversation of demand of bribe by the non-applicant No.1. On 05.09.2012 Constable Satish Bara was sent along with the complainant in the office of Janpad Panchayat, Dandla but they could not meet him as he was busy in meeting. Thereafter on 06.09.2012 at about 10-10.30 A.M they visited the house of non-applicant No.1 but the complainant alone entered inside the house and recorded the conversation with non-applicant No.1. According to the complainant he called him in his office on 07.09.2012 for payment of Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification. The complainant handed over the voice recorder to the Inspector Yuvraj Singh Chouhan. He heard the conversation and obtained a second written complaint from the complainant. He called Panch witnesses viz. Anil Mishra, Assistant District Excise Officer, Indore and S.K.Jain, Assistant District Excise Officer, Indore. Both the applications were read over to the complainant in presence of above two witnesses and they all heard the conversation recorded in the voice recorder and thereafter took a decision to organize a trap. The complainant was asked to arrange currency of Rs.20,000/- and after providing the currency of Rs.20,000/- of different denominations it was prepared by applying phenolphthalein powder. The complainant kept the tainted currency in his pant pocket and he was asked not to shake the hand with the accused/non-applicant No.1 before handing over the bribe money. He was also instructed to switch on the recorder to record the conversation. After explaining all the necessary procedure the trap team was formed comprising of S.L Kataria DSP & G.S.Sharma DSP, Satish Bara, Ravindra Tripathi, Anil Chouhan, Head Constable Vijay Shinde & Arvind Tripathi, Constable Satish Bara, Ram Swaroop & Subhash Mishra. As per the schedule they reached the office of Janpad Panchayat at 1.30 P.M and the complainant alone went inside the office. According to the prosecution story the complainant went inside the chamber of non-applicant No.1 who demanded the bribe money