The main legal point established in the judgment is the essentiality of proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

1. The Special Police Establishment Lokayukt has filed this appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of acquittal of respondent No.1-Inderlal Dabi under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act') and Section 120-B of IPC and also against acquittal under Section 120-B of IPC of respondent No.2-Indresh Khillari. Indresh Khillari who has been convicted under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act and which he has already challenged by way of Criminal Appeal No. 11587 of 2022.

Facts of the case in short are as under:

2. From 22.09.2014 to 27.09.2014 Indresh Khillari was posted as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Indore. Inderlal Dabi was also posted in the said office but in housing branch as Upper Division Clerk. The Complainant Deepak Gurjar was holding the post of Vice President of Atharva Sehkari Sakh Sanstha Maryadit, Indore. He submitted a written typed complaint dated 22.09.2014 in the office of Lokayukt Indore that he is holding a post of Vice President of the Atharva Sehkari Sakh Sanstha Maryadit, Indore, for the registration of the society he submitted an application in the office of Registrar, Cooperative Department, Jail Road, Indore two months ago. For this work he met Indresh Khillari but he demanded Rs.15,000/- as bribe, under the pressure he has given Rs.5,000/- now he does not want to give him remaining Rs.10,000/- and willing to catch him red handed.

3. The complaint was handed over to Anil Singh Chouhan for investigation by the Superintendent of Police the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt). The complainant was given a voice recorder to record the conversation with Indresh Khillari. He met with Indresh Khillari on 22.09.2014 with shadow witness and recorded a conversation of demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/-, . He was directed to give bribe money on 26.09.2014 at 4 pm in his office. After verification of the demand of bribe another complaint was obtained from the complainant, thereafter a Dehati Nalish was registered on 26.09.2014 under Section 7 of the PC Act. Trap team was organized by calling 2 panch witnesses, the complainant was directed to arrange currency of Rs.10,000/- and accordingly the complainant arranged Rs.10,000/- and handed over to the Inspector who applied the phenolphthalein powder in the said currency for the purpose of trap of Indresh Khillari.

4. On 26.09.2014, the complainant along with trap team reached near the office of the Deputy Registrar, the complainant met Indresh Khillari then he called Inderlal Dabi (respondent No.1) there. Inderlal Dabi came outside from the office of Deputy Registrar with complainant and Indresh Khillari also came outside, Inderlal Dabi received Rs.10,000/-, from complainant, thereafter he gave a pre-decided signal to the member of trap team. Two constables immediately rushed and caught hold the both the hands of Inderlal Dabi. Indresh Khillari ran away from the spot. Rs.10,000/- tainted money was recovered, later on Indresh Khillari was arrested on 28.09.2014 and after completing investigation charge-sheet under Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of PC Act and Section 120-B of IPC was filed against Indresh Khillari and charge sheet against Inderlal Dabi was filed under Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of PC Act and Section 120-B of IPC.

5. Both of them denied the charges, hence the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, in defence the respondents examined 2 witnesses. Prosecution exhibited 44 documents, defence exhibited 3 documents. After appreciating the evidence came on record the learned Special Judge has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the conspiracy between Indresh Khillari and Inderlal Dabi for taking bribe from the complainant. It is also held that there was no such complaint or conversation with Inderlal Dabi. He neither demanded the bribe nor accepted money as a bribe, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal und