To convict for bribery, both demand and voluntary acceptance must be proven; mere recovery of money is insufficient.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 31-10-1998 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 1/1993. By the impugned judgment, accused / appellant Dinesh Kumar Kannoje has been convicted under S.161 of the Indian Penal Code and S.5(1)(d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (henceforth 'the Act, 1947' ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, respectively. Both the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
The appellant was posted as Patwari of Halka No.2, Village Mandeli, District Raipur in July, 1988. Complainant Chaitram (PW - 7), resident of Village Mandeli, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur wanted to obtain a loan from Bank. In this regard, he required a certificate that he did not have any land in his name. On being contacted to the appellant for issuance of such a certificate, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 60/- therefor from the complainant. Since, the complaintnat did not want to give bribe to the appellant, he made a complaint (Ex. P - 1) to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Office of Lokayukta, Raipur on 20-7-1988. The complaint (Ex. P - 1) was forwarded to Inspector Jivan Bhalekar (PW - 11) for necessary action.
On receiving the complaint (Ex. P - 1), Jivan Bhalekar (PW - 11) record Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P - 14).He called for Panch Witnesses Dr. Abdul Rashid (PW - 1) and R. A. Sharma (PW - 4). Both the Panch Witnesses were given the complaint (Ex. P - 1) for their perusal. They enquired about the complaint (Ex. P - 1) from the complainant. Thereafter, currency notes of total Rs. 60/- in the denomination of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 10/- were submitted by the complainant. A pre - trap demonstration was arranged wherein a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass. On dip of a plain paper in the solution, colour of which did not change. Thereafter, another piece of paper containing phenolphthalein powder was dipped in the said solution, then colour of the solution turned pink. A pre - Trap Panchnama (Ex. P - 2) was prepared. Numbers of the currency notes submitted by the complainant were recorded in Pre - Trap Panchnama (Ex. P - 2). After submission of the currency notes, phenolphthalein powder was smeared thereon and the notes were kept in right - side pocket of the pant of complainant Chaitram (PW - 7). Complainant Chaitram (PW - 7) was instructed and guided as to how the trap would be arranged and as to the role which they were required to play in the trap proceedings. The trap - team proceeded for Village Mandeli. When they reached Village Mandeli, at that time, the appellant was not present there. He had gone to Dhamtari. On the same day, at about 6 p.m., the appellant came back toVillage Mandeli. When the appellant reached near a tank (Talab), complainant Chaitram (PW - 7)met him there and gave him the currency notes of Rs. 60/-. Thereafter, complainant Chaitram(PW - 7) transmitted a signal to the trap - team. The trap - team rushed to the spot immediately and caught hands of the appellant. The trap - team seized the currency notes of Rs. 60/- from the pocket of the shirt of the appellant. The numbers of the seized currency notes were