The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a demand for illegal gratification was made, as mere recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 recorded by the court of learned Special Judge, Anti - Corruption, Jammu (for short 'the trial court') in case titled, 'State v. Ashu Jolly', whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge for the commission of offences under S.5(1) (d) read with S.5(2) and S.4A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 , registered with Police Station, Vigilance Organization, (Now, Anti - Corruption Bureau), Jammu.

2. The judgment has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that despite there being sufficient oral, documentary and scientific evidence in respect of conscious demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent and subsequent recovery of the same from the respondent, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent by sheer wrong and mis - appreciation of evidence.

3. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Senior AAG has submitted that the prosecution had proved the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe of amount of Rs.5,000 from the respondent, as such, the learned trial court could not have acquitted the respondent and in fact, the judgment is perverse and contrary to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.

4. Per contra, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the opinion formed by the learned trial court, while acquitting the respondent, cannot be termed as perverse, more particularly, when the statement of the complainant is contradictory in nature. He has further laid much stress that the statement of shadow witness, namely, Sushma Rani reveals that she allegedly made the pre - fixed signal to one Jagdev Singh, who was never associated with investigation and was not even produced as a witness during trial. Mr. Sharma has urged that the respondent was not a competent person / authority to clear the synopsis of the complainant and the synopsis was to be cleared by the panel duly constituted by the University, of which the respondent was never a member. Next, he contended that there was absolutely no evidence on record in respect of demand of bribe before registration of FIR and laying of trap and in view of this legal infirmity, the respondent could not have been convicted and as such, learned trial court after due appreciation of evidence has rightly acquitted the respondent.

5. Prosecution case:
Briefly stated the case projected by the prosecution in the chargesheet is that on 09.12.2016 a written complaint (Ext - P - 1) was submitted by the complainant i.e. PW - 1 stating therein that she was the student at Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) under Roll No. 12547190 and had submitted her synopsis four times, but each time her synopsis was rejected. Her previous guide was Mohd. Zubair Kales but she had subsequently changed him. The respondent, Assistant Professor in Government College of Education, Canal Road Jammu was her Guide after Mohd. Zubair Kales. It was further stated that the respondent had demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe for clearing her synopsis and under the compelling circumstances, she was going to hand over the first instalment to her on that day only. On receipt of this information, FIR bearing No. 25 of 2016 was registered on 09.12.2016 at 1215 hours for commission of offences under S.5(1)(d) read with S.5(2) and S.4A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 . Inspector, Naresh Kumar was deputed as Investigating Officer by Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of the Vigilance Organization, Jammu on the same day itself. A trap team was constituted by the SSP, Vigilance Organization, headed by PW H. L.