The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient.

1. This appeal is arising out of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.01.2003 passed by Learned Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Sessions Case No. 06/1998, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under S.7, S.13(1)(d) and S.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 hereinafter called as (Act of 1988) and sentenced him in the following manner with the direction to run the sentence concurrently: -

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Patwari and was posted at Patwali Halka No. 41, Motimpur Kala Circle, Kharora District - Raipur. The sister of the complainant namely Paraniyabai was the owner of certain land situated at Motimpur, Patwari Halka No. 41, Tehsil Kharora District - Raipur. She wants to sale her land for which the revenue documents was required and the demarcation of her land was also required before its sale. The complainant Dukhuram Dewangan was taking care of the land of his sister Paraniyabai and he was to manage the various proceedings of the execution of sale deed including obtaining the revenue documents from the concerned patwari. He asked the appellant for attested true copies of Khasra Panch Sala, B - 1 and map of the land for which the appellant demanded Rs.2500/- as bribe / illegal gratification. On 28.05.1997 the complainant Dukhuram Dewangan made a written complaint Ex. - P / 1 to the Superintendent of Police Lokayukt Raipur. To verify his complaint, a mini tape recorder was given to the complainant by the officers of Lokayukt, Raipur and convinced him to get the conversation with the appellant recorded with respect to illegal demand by him. The complainant again went to the appellant, get the conversation recorded and again on 29.05.1997 another complaint Ex. - P / 2 was made by the complainant on which the unnumbered F.I.R. Ex. - P / 25 was registered.

3. On his application a trap party was constituted, the panch witnesses were called. The complainant gave Rs.2500/- to the officers of the Lokayukt and the panchnama of its serial number was prepared. The currency notes were tainted with phenopthenil powder. The tainted currency notes was kept in left pocket of the shirt of the complainant and convinced him to touch it only at the time of handing it over to the appellant and convinced him to made gesture after completion of the transaction. Again one mini tape - recorder was given to the complainant for recording of the conversation with the appellant at the time of handing over the bribe amount and thereafter the trap party proceeded towards the residence of the appellant.

4. The complainant handed over the bribe to the appellant which has been received by him and on being gesture made by the complainant, the officers of the trap party came there, caught - hold the hands of the appellant, get his hands washed and then the solution turned pink which has been seized and sealed separately. The bribe amount of Rs.2500/- was seized from the appellant and the serial number of currency notes were tallied with the pre - trap panchnama. After holding the due procedure of investigation and various seizures, recording statement of witnesses, a numbered F.I.R. Ex. - P / 3 was registered on 29.05.1997. The seized property sent for its chemical examination to FSL Sagar from where the FSL report has been received in which presence of phenopthenil chemical was found positive. The appellant has been arrested and after due process of investigation charge sheet was filed before learned trial Court, for the