JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2012 passed by Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bhopal (M.P.) in Special Case No.06/2010, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2,500/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2,500/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution, the complainant, an Assistant Teacher at Government Primary Girls’ School, Karondiya applied for withdrawal of Rs.3,00,000/- from his GPF Account for repairs of his house on 28.01.2009. The appellant, who was posted as Principal, Higher Secondary School, Gunga and exercising the drawing and disbursing power, sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It was alleged that the appellant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- for transferring the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of complainant. At this, the complainant approached the Special Police Establishment (SPE) Lokayukta office, Bhopal. To verify this complaint, the DVR was handed over to the complainant to record the conversation. The conversation was recorded on 08.07.2009 and on its basis transcript (Ex.P-4) was prepared on 09.07.2009. Preparatory steps were taken on the same day to conduct the trap and accordingly pre-trap memorandum (Ex.P-6) was prepared. According to the prosecution, the complainant went inside the office of appellant for giving the bribe amount but as there are many people inside the office, the appellant asked the complainant to come back on next day, i.e., on 10.07.2009. As per the prosecution, a Purak Karyawahi Panchnama (Ex. P-8) was prepared on 10.07.2009 and the trap party went to the school. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant went inside the office of appellant and handed over to him Rs.5,000/-, which the appellant kept in his pocket. Thereafter, the complainant came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. It is alleged that the appellant realized that he was being trapped, he therefore, took out the bribe money from his pocket and threw it on the table kept outside the office of the appellant and drove away on his motor bike towards Karondiya with one Ram Lakhan Sharma (P.W.-3). He was however, caught mid way and taken to Primary Health Centre nearby, where his fingers and shirts were dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, which turned pink. After completion of the formalities, prosecution was lodged against the appellant on obtaining necessary sanction.

3. In support of the charges under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. During the course of examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the charges and pleaded innocence. His defence all along was that he was falsely implicated by the complainant and Yogesh Singh Sainger (P.W.-5), who was holding a grudge against him, as appellant had made complainant against Yogesh Singh Sainger (P.W.-5) and issued a show cause notice. His further defence was that voice in the recorder was not his nor he has demanded or accepted the amount.

4. The trial Court, however, on the basis of evidence on record, held the charges against the appellant to be proved and convicted and sentenced him as aforestated.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount as alleged. It is urged that no voice sample of the appellant was obtained and no voice identification was done. It is argued that apart from complainant, who himself was an interested witness, no one has identified appellant’s voice. It is further pointed out that editing and tampering with the tape cannot be ruled out, as according to the prosecut