In trap cases, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven, and the testimony of the complainant alone cannot be the sole basis of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

M. C. GARG, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by State of M.P. after having obtained leave to appeal under section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, aggrieved of the judgment of the special judge delivered in Special Case No. 12/1987, dated 29th of November, 1996, against the order acquitting the respondent who was charged along with Nathmal Jain for having committed offence under section 161 of Penal Code and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Nathmal Jain was discharged before the evidence started in this case; by the impugned judgment special judge acquitted the present respondent by holding, that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

2. It was trap case laid by officer of Lokayukt upon the respondent at the instance of the complainant (PW-1 Tukaram) who lodged the report Ex.P.3 alleging that while working as Junior Engineer of M. P.EB, the respondent posted at Khetiya, had demanded a sum of Rs. 1500/- from the complainant for reconnecting the electricity connection in the agricultural field/farm of the complainant which he had purchased from PW Pratap about 10 months ago.

3. As per complaint Ex.P.3, it was alleged that after purchase of the agricultural field/farm from PW Pratap the complainant approached the junior engineer/respondent for reconnecting electric supply which stood disconnected on account of non-payment of electricity dues, the junior engineer told him that after payment of the outstanding amount, the electric connection would be restored. The Complainant then deposited the dues payable yet he could not get the electricity restored. He again approached the respondent. This time the respondent/accused asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 750/- if he wanted re-connection. Tukaram could not pay that amount but later he again approached the Engineer on Ist of February 1986 along with PW Pratap who was the earlier owner of the field. PW Pratap informed the respondent that he had sold the property to Tukaram and requested him to reconnect the electricity connection in as much as the dues towards electricity charges stood paid. At that time respondent/accused asked Tukaram to pay Rs. 1500/- for reconnection of electricity. Tukaram stated that Rs. 1500/- was on higher side and that he was earlier asked to pay Rs. 750/- only. On that Tukaram was told by the respondent/accused that you have to pay Rs. 1700/- for reconnection and thereafter said that you may pay Rs. 1400/- only.

4. It is further case of the prosecution that Tukaram told about illegal demand by accused/respondent to his friend PW Ratilal. On the advise of Ratilal for getting the respondent/accused arrested red handed, he approached the office of Lokayukt along with the money on 4th of February, 1986 and made the report Ex.P.3 to the Superintendent of Police (Lokayukta).

5. At the instance of the Lokayukt on the next day at about 8.00 AM Tukaram along with Ratilal came to the office of Lokayukta and met Shri R.N. Upadhayay the Superintendent of Police who also summoned V. K .Dubey a gazetted officer to join the raid as a public witness. Other persons who were called were Inspector Babusigh, Constable Hariprasad Malviya, Baburao Gorghode, Ramchandra Solanki and Vithalrao. Formal proceedings were recorded.

6. Thereafter police Superintendent and members of the raiding party along with Tukaram reached the accused/respondent. The police Superintendent went to meet the accused and treated the hands of the respondent with Sodium Carbonate solution, wherein, the hands of the respondent/accused became pink. At that time, respondent was asked about Rs. 1400/- which according to Tukaram was paid to him towards illegal gratification but the accused denied having received any such amount. Police Superintendent and Vinod Kumar Dubey then persuaded Nathmal Jain, and asked to produce the money. According to PW Upadhyay on being enqauired Nath Mal told him that the money was paid to him