Shantanu Kemkar, J.@mdashThis appeal u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2001 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Special Case No. 1/2001 convicting the appellant u/s 7 read with sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively and fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default, further six months rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at the relevant point of time, the appellant was working as a Public Servant on the post of Patwari in Halka No. 60, Zhirniya. Village Hatpai Palki was within his territorial jurisdiction. Complainant Biharilal (PW1) purchased agricultural land at village Hatpai Palki, which for being mutated in his and his wife Vimal Kohali''s name, he submitted an application Ex.P-7 with sale-deeds Ex.P-14 and P-15 before the appellant in January, 2000. On 7.4.2000, when he met the appellant at Nagda and inquired about the order on his application for mutation, the appellant informed him that the work is ready but the papers will be handed over to him, if he gives Rs. 2,000/- to him. The complainant was not ready to fulfil this demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/-. He, therefore, approached the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta Organization, Ujjain and submitted a written complaint dated 8.4.2000 Ex.P-1 to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta Organization, Ujjain. On receipt of the said complaint, a case was registered against the appellant and was entrusted to Inspector R.L. Bachhne (PW6) for investigation. Letters were sent by the Superintendent of Police to depute gazetted officers for being included in the trap party in the capacity of panch-witnesses. In compliance to the directions, PS Nagresh, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ujjain and N.K. Jain (PW3) Executive Engineer, M.P. Housing Board were deputed. Panch-witnesses were introduced to the complainant and they verified the contents of complaint from the complainant. The panch-witness N.K. Jain read over the complaint in the presence of the complainant. The complainant, after hearing its contents, accepted the contents of it to be true. He also admitted that the complaint to be written by him.
2. Thereafter, two currency notes of denomination Rs. 500/- and ten currency notes of denomination Rs. 100/-; total Rs. 2,000/- given by the complainant, were applied with phenolphthalein powder by Peon Mangilal. Search of the complainant was conducted by Constable Haklai Prasad. Except the clothes nothing was allowed to remain on the body of the complainant. Thereafter, Mangilal Peon kept the currency notes in the left pocket of the shirt of the complainant. He was instructed that he should not come in contact with the treated currency notes prior to handing over the same to the appellant. He was also directed that after handing over the bribe money to the appellant, he will not shake hand with the appellant and after passing over the bribe money to him, he will rub his left hand on his head as a signal to the trap party, to the effect that the transaction of giving bribe money has taken place. Head Constable Vijay Barche prepared two packets of phenolphthalein powder and Mangilal Peon prepared solution of sodium carbonate. By the solution prepared by Vijay Barche hands of both the panch-witnesses and the complainant were washed; colour was not changed. In the other bowl the solution prepared by Peon Mangilal, who had put phenolphthalein powder on the notes rubbed his hands on the currency notes, his hands were washed by that solution, on which the solution turned pink, indicating thereby the physical receipt of the tainted currency by him. This solution was collected in bottle and was sealed.
3. Further necessary steps were taken and thereafter preliminary panchnama Ex.P-2 was prepared in the presence of the panch-witnesses of the complainant. Thereafter, trap party proceeded towards the residence of the appellant at 346, Gandhi Gram Colony, Nagda at 17:20 hours. The complainant entered into the house of the appellant at first floor. He handed over Rs. 2,000/- to the appellant and trap party, who were at the convenient position, on getting the signal from the complainant, entered inside the house and after giving their introduction, caught the appellant red-handed with the bribe amount in his pocket. At the spot fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the fingers and the hands of the appellant were washed in that solution. On dipping the fingers of his hands, colour of the solution turned to pink. This confirmed his physical receipt of the tainted currency notes from Biharilal. The said solution was collected in a separate bottle and was sealed. The mutation register, Bhoo-Adhikar-Rin-Pustika in the name of the complainant and his wife, sale-deed and the application for mutation were recovered from the appellant and he was arrested. After the investigation was over, sanction for prosecute the appellant was obtained and thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge.
4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and placed on record documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-32. The appellant took defence in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the complainant was making haste to get his work done. He was repeatedly visiting his house for this purpose. However, as his daughters, in the absence of any male member in the house, did not offer him to sit, as a result, he was annoyed and falsely implicated him. In support of his defence, the appellant did not lead any evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the evidence available on record.
6. It was not disputed before the trial Court and before this Court that at the relevant point of time, the appellant was working as Public Servant on the post of Patwari. Complainant Biharilal (PW1) in his deposition has stated that he had submitted an application for mutation of the land in his and his wife''s name to the appellant in January, 2000. Although in cross-examination, he had stated that in March, the appellant had demanded Rs. 2,000/- for doing the work of mutation, but that itself will not dislodge his deposition that on 7th April, 2000, when he met the appellant at Nagda, the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/-. He stated that he made a complaint Ex.P-1 to the Lokayukta on 8th April, 2000 and, thereafter, two panch witnesses were called; out of which N.K. Jain (PW3) panch witness read over the complaint to him and asked him as to whether he had lodged this complaint. Thereafter, the complainant gave Rs. 2,000/- in the denomination of two currency notes of Rs. 500/- and rest of Rs. 100/- each for being treated. He further supported the entire necessary steps taken by the prosecution regarding phenolphthalein test. The evidence of the complainant (PW1) is duly supported by N.K. Jain (PW3), who was the panch-witness. R.L. Bachane (PW6), the Investigating Officer and the witness Sachchidanand Singh (PW5) have proved the entire process for trap. On due assessment of the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the appellant, as aforesaid.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant''s evidence regarding demand of bribe has not been corroborated by any independent witness. In this regard, suffice it to observe that for the evidence of bribe giver, corroboration need not be direct. It can be by way of circumstantial evidence also. Testimony of bribe giver cannot be rejected merely because he is aggrieved by the conduct of the accused. No doubt, his evidence requires scrutiny with great care. When it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of money by the accused, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence the demand or motive. It has only to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of the case obtained in the particular case u/s 20 of the Act, where the receipt of money was proved beyond reasonable doubt and no reasonable explanation offered by the accused as to how the tainted money came to his possession, it will be presumed that the accused accepted the bribe.
8. Having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that the same are reliable and trustworthy. The prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant had demanded bribe of Rs. 2,000/- for passing the order of mutation of the land in favour of the complainant and his wife, who had purchased the agricultural land vide sale-deeds Ex.P-14 and P-15. The trap was arranged in the presence of the panch witness N.K. Jain (PW3). After necessary formalities, trap party, who proceeded to the appellant''s house, where complainant Biharilal (PW1) gave the bribe money to the appellant and signaled to the trap party that the bribe money has been given. Thereafter, the appellant was caught red-handed and phenolphthalein test was carried out by washing the hands on which the solution turned pink. The defence, which was put-forth by the appellant, has not been proved by him by any reliable evidence. He had not put any question to the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant regarding his defence in their cross-examination.
9. In view of the aforesaid, we find that there is no error in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court against the appellant. The trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence in paragraphs No. 10 to 41 and has correctly marshaled the evidence for recording the finding of guilt against the appellant. In view of the aforesaid, in our considered view, no case is made out to interfere in the judgment of conviction recorded against the appellant. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to serve out his remaining part of the sentence.
The appeal is dismissed.
