The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the charge of demanding a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the court may rely on evidence such as witness testimony, recorded conversations, and trap operations to establish the offense.

JUDGMENT :

VIMLA JAIN, J.

The appellant preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-12-2005 passed by Special Judge, Sagar in Special Case No. 14/2004 whereby he had convicted and sentenced him as mentioned below under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'),

Provision Sentence Under section 7 of the Act Rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Rameshwar Kurmi (P.W.2) was running a Shoe Shop in village Patna Bujurg, Teshil, Rehli. On 19-12-2002 at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant along with other staff members had come to the shop of Kamlesh, a handicapped, and registered a case against him under Gambling Act and arrested him. He was released on bail later on. The appellant also arrested the complainant Rameshwar Kurmi and took him to the police station. The appellant kept him in police custody for about 3 hours, demanded Rs. 1500/- and threatened that on failure to pay, he would implicate him under Gambling Act and section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. On receiving information Santosh, friend of complainant, reached there. The complainant informed him that appellant T.I. demanded Rs. 1500/- but he did not have money. Santosh promised to arrange the money in a day or two. Thereafter, Rameshwar was released from the police custody.

3. The complainant Rameshwar did not pay bribe money to the appellant and filed a written complaint (Ex. P/3) in the office of Special Police Establishment (SPE) Lokayukt, Sagar. SPE, Lokayukt had given Mini Tape Recorder with Cassette to the complainant for recording the conversation of appellant and prepared a panchnma (Ex. P/4). Thereafter complainant recorded the conversation regarding demand of illegal gratification and handed over it to the SPE, Sagar. After listening the recorded conversation, Dev Vrit Mishra (P.W.10) made a transcript panchnama (Ex.P/1) and registered the First Information Report (Ex. P/8). Complainant had given repeat application (Ex. P/5) for red-handed trapping of the appellant along with Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter, trap party went to Rehli along with complainant and his friend Santosh (P.W.1) for trapping the appellant. But red-handed trapping of the appellant could not be made because appellant/accused got the information that the trap party had come in this regard. Therefore, the trap failed and panchnama (Ex.P/2) of such failure was prepared. After completion of investigation and sanction from the Government, challan was filed against the appellant in the competent Court.

4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and innocence. He claimed to be tried with the prayer that he had been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant with the intention to prevent the appellant/accused from registering any case under Gambling Act in future after getting the advice of an Advocate.

5. In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his defence.

6. The learned Court below, after scanning the evidence found the charges proved against the appellant. Therefore, it convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove.

7. This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Court below has committed grave error of law in holding the appellant/accused guilty for the offences under the Act, because the shop owner was Kamlesh therefore, demand should have been made from him and not Rameshwar, an employee. Demand of bribe in Police Station appears to be unnatural. He further submits that there are contradictions in the statements of Santosh Kumar (P.W.1) and that of Kamlesh (P.W.11). The complainant had concocted a false case against the appellant