Point of Law: Mere recovery of money divorced from circumstances under which it is paid cannot lead to conclusion of guilt.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. Since both the appeals are arising out of C.C. No. 40 of 2003, wherein A1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2008 and A2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2008, they are being heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants will be referred to as Accused Officers 1 and 2. Accused No. 1 (AO1) was the then Circle Inspector of Police and Accused No. 2 (AO2), was the then Sub-Inspector of Police working in the Dubbak Police Station. According to ACB, PW-1/de-facto complainant approached ACB and lodged complaint Ex.P15 on 04-02-2008, stating that his minor daughter was kidnapped. Accordingly, he gave application before Dubbak Police Station. AO-2 did not take any action even though Rs. 1000/- was paid and there was no progress in the investigation. PW-1 went around the police station several times, however, no attempts were made by the Accused Officers to trace out the daughter of PW-1. PW-1 also approached the Officer on Special Duty and narrated his grievance. She asked PW-1 to meet AO1. However, AO-1 demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of money to be spent on searching his daughter. PW-1 borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from PW-2 and gave it to AO-1. The daughter of PW-1 was later traced and sent for medical examination. On 04-05-2002, AO-1 counselled the boy with the whom PW-1s daughter eloped and advised to get them married after one year. Thereafter, AO-1 insisted for remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- to be paid, failing which naxalite cases, will be framed against PW-1. AO-2 also called PW-1 and demanded bribe amount. When PW-1 informed that he had already paid Rs. 5,000/- to AO-1, AO-2 insisted that Rs. 5,000/- should also be paid to him. On 15-05-2002 after several attempts finally accused officers stated that Rs. 10,000/- has to be paid to AO-1 by the next day or day after and Rs. 5,000/- to AO-2. Aggrieved by the said demands of AO-1 and AO-2, the present complaint was filed.

3. On the basis of the complaint, the ACB laid a trap against accused officers on 16-05-2002 and the proceedings started at the 6.15 a.m. on the said date. The 1st mediators report Ex.P4 was drafted and the amount meant to be paid as bribe that is Rs. 10,000/- to AO-1, Rs. 5,000/- to AO-2 were separately put in the Baniyan pocket of PW-1. Thereafter, around 8.30 a.m. after completing all formalities, the trap party started from ACB office which included PWs. 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10. They reached the police station around 10.45 a.m. PW-1 and PW-2 went inside the police station around 11.00 A.M. Around 11.30 A.M. both PWs. 1 and 2 came out from the main gate and gave pre-arranged signal as instructed by the DSP.

4. The trap party after entered into the police station on seeing the signal. Sri K. Muralidhar, Inspector, apprehended AO-2 by holding his both hands after introducing himself as Inspector. PW-10, Investigating Officer introduced himself to AO-1, who started licking his fingers and entered into an argument with the ACB trap party and shouted at the ACB trap party that they are not from ACB and they will be shot as they are suspected to be naxalites and caught hold of collar of PW-10. Then PW-9 introduced himself as DSP and requested accused officers to not to intervene as they are discharging their official duties and accordingly asked accused officers to rinse their fingers in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution turned into light pink colour mixed with purple/blue colour. The inner flaps of the pant right side pocket of AO-1 was subjected to sodium test which also yielded positive result. When AO-1 was asked to produce the amount, AO-1 denied having received any amount and did not produce any amount. AO-2 was also asked to rinse his fingers in the sodium carbonate solution which did not yield any result. However, AO-2 produced Rs. 5,000/- from his left side pocket which tallied with the numbers mentioned in first mediators report. PWs. 1 and 2 were