State Of M.P v. Anil Kumar Verma .

JUDGMENT S.A. Naqvi, J.

1. Appellant-State has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 1-5-2000 passed by Special Judge, Morena (Prevention of Corruption "Act", 1988) in Special Case No. 1/97, whereby the respondent Anil Kumar Verma has been acquitted of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption "Act", 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the

"Act"

)

2. Admitted facts are that on 22-5-1996 respondent Anil Kumar Verma was posted as Dy. Registrar in Co-operative Societies, Morena and was serving as a public servant. Complainant Siyaram Rathore was Accountant in the said Co-operative Societies. On 1-11-1995 the son of complainant Tulsiram was appointed on the post of peon as daily wages employee in the Co-operative Societies, Morena by M.K. Dixit, Assistant Registrar and Officer in charge of the Co-operative Societies. In December, 1995 respondent Anil Kumar Verma came on transfer as Dy. Registrar in Morena Office.

3. Prosecution case in short is that respondent Anil Kumar Verma told complainant Siyaram Rathore that the service of his son Tulsiram is not approved by him and if complainant does not give Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) as bribe to respondent then respondent shall remove the son of complainant Siyaram Rathore from service. Complainant agreed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) to respondent as bribe. On 20-5-96 complainant Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) went to Lokayukt Office (Anti Corruption Bureau), Gwalior and submitted a written complaint Exh. P-13. Superintendent of Police (Lokayukt) Gwalior took down the note sheet Exh. P-22 and directed Inspector Rajendra Singh Ghuraiya (P.W. 7) to take further action. A tape recorder along with cassette has been handed over to complainant as per Panchnama Exh. P-14 and directed to the complainant to tape conversation of his and respondent regarding demand of bribe. The complainant taped conversation in the tape recorder and handed over it to Lokayukt Office on 21-5-96 and a Panchnama Exh. P-15 has been prepared. A transcript thereof Exh. P-23 has been prepared on the basis of recorded cassette.

4. On 21-5-96 Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) submitted a written application Exh. P-1 in the Lokayukt Office. Thereafter, Rajendra Singh Ghuraiya (P.W. 7) arranged the trap proceeding. In the presence of Bhasker Dwivedi (P.W. 1) and Bharat Singh gave introduction of complainant Siyaram Rathore. Bhasker Dwivedi read over the application Exh. P-l to complainant. Complainant handed over a bundle of Rs. 50/- containing 100 notes. Sub-Inspector Ramswaroop Singh Ojha (P.W. 2) applied a layer of phenolphthalein powder on the bundle of said notes and the said bundle has been put in the pocket of Pyjama of complainant and directed him that after giving the said bundle to the respondent/accused to give indication to the trap party by putting hand on his head. Necessary formalities were done and Panchnama Exh. P-2 has been prepared.

5. On 21-5-96 trap party along with the complainant went to Morena from Gwalior, but respondent was out of station. Trap party then came back and Panchnama Exh. P-3 has been prepared. On 22-5-96 trap party again along with complainant went to Morena by Government vehicle and according to plan surrounded the house of respondent. Complainant went to the house of respondent and handed over the bundle of notes to the respondent and gave indication to the trap party and thereafter trap party apprehended the respondent and recovered the said bundle of Rs. 5000/- from the respondent, which was given by the complainant to the respondent. The fingers of Bhasker Dwivedi (P.W. 1) who seized the bundle of notes, were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate but the solution turned in pink colour. The number of notes were tallied with Panchnama. One note of Rs. 50 was separated from the bundle of said notes. A trouser and kurta of respondent were seized as per seizure memo Exh. P-5. A part of kurta was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and solution turned in pink colour and a Panchnama Exh. P-6 has been prepared. The fingers of respondent were also dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and said solution turned in pink colour and said pink solution was seized. Spot map Exh. P-7 has been prepared and a search of the house of respondent was made and Panchnama Exh. P-8 has been prepared. Respondent has been arrested as per arrest memo Exh. P-9. On the basis of Exh. P-1 submitted by complainant, Dehati Nalishi Exh. P-24 has been recorded and a case at Crime No. 49/98 Exh. P-20 has been registered. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Simple sodium carbonate solution and pink turned solution have been sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar. As per report Exh. P-26, solution contains phenolphthalein.

6. The sanction to prosecute the respondent Exh. P-22 has been obtained from the Competent Authority and a charge-sheet under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the "Act" has been filed in the Competent Court.

7. Learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the "Act". Respondent abjured the guilt. His defence is that M.K. Dixit conspired with Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) he has been falsely implicated. M.K. Dixit was subordinate employee to respondent and on complaint, he was transferred to Guna from Morena. M.K. Dixit did not want to join at Guna and he tried to cancel his transfer order by hook or crook. He forced respondent not to relieve him through politicians, but respondent relieved M.K. Dixit on 19-2-1996, but he by putting his leave application proceeded to Bhopal to get his transfer cancelled. Lateron, M.K. Dixit again gave joining in the office but the respondent rejected it. With the help of complainant made a false case against the respondent. M.K. Dixit appointed complainant's son Tulsiram as contingent paid employee. At the instance of M.K. Dixit, complainant falsely implicated him (respondent).

8. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses and respondent did not choose to examine any witness in his defence.

9. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence and material on record, learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of all charges levelled against him.

10. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant/State has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the impugned judgment is illegal and contrary to law. Prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent by producing clinching and reliable evidence, but learned Trial Court committed error in disbelieving the prosecution evidence and acquitting the respondent. Prosecution has proved beyond doubt that respondent has received bribe of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant and Rs. 5000/-were seized from the possession of the respondent. Learned Trial Court committed illegality and perversity in acquitting the respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor prayed to allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment and convict the respondent and sentence him under the aforementioned sections.

11. Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. His argument is that the learned Trial Court did not err in acquitting the respondent. Learned Trial Court assigned cogent and sound reasonings for disbelieving the prosecution evidence and acquitting the respondent. He prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. I have heard both the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment, prosecution evidence and material on record.

13. It is not disputed that on the fateful day, respondent Anil Kumar Verma was a public servant and was working as Dy. Registrar, in Co-operative Societies, Morena. It is also not disputed that complainant Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) was working as an Accountant in the office of Co-operative Societies, Morena and his son Tulsiram was also working as contingent employee in the said office. It is also admitted that Tulsiram was appointed as contingent employee by Mahendra Dixit, Officer In-charge and Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Later-on, he was transferred to Guna and was relieved by the respondent. I am not going to examine the evidence in detail regarding these admitted facts.

14. Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) deposed that respondent called him and demanded Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees then thousand) as bribe to continue in service or approve the appointment of his son Tulsiram. He told that I am not having money. He further deposed that he agreed to pay only Rs. 5000/- to respondent, but later-on he thought to make a complaint in Lokayukt Police, Gwalior and on 20-5-1996 he presented application Exh. P-13 in Lokayukt Office, Gwalior. He also deposed that on the direction of respondent, the pay for the month of March was paid after five days to his son Tulsiram. He also deposed that he asked to prepare pay of April's month of Tulsiram, but Officer In-charge told him not to prepare pay bill. He told complainant that Dy. Registrar has directed him not to prepare pay bill of Tulsiram. He met respondent, but respondent told that you are not complying my order/demand. Complainant told him (respondent) that after thinking he would reply him (respondent). Prosecution on the basis of abovementioned facts tried to prove the demand of bribe from the complainant by respondent for approval of appointment of his son Tulsiram and to pay his salary regularly.

15. Shivnarayan Sharma (P.W. 5) was working in Co-operative Societies Office, Morena at the relevant time. Shivnarayan deposed that Mahendra Dixit was transferred to Guna and he was trying to get his transfer order cancelled but respondent relieved him. Mahendra Dixit by putting his leave application went to Bhopal. He gave again his joining report but respondent did not join him and relieved him. On going through the evidence and admission made by Shivnarayan it is established that Mahendra Dixit dehorsed to the rules appointed Tulsiram, son of complainant, as contingent paid employee in the office and he passed a proposal regarding same on back date. It is also clear from the evidence of Shivnarayan that on the date of trap, Mahendra Dixit reached Co-operative Societies office, Morena alongwith trap party, complainant says that on the date of incident, i.e., on 22-5-96 Mahendra Dixit was in Morena and he was monitoring the trap and he reached Co-operative Societies office, Morena alongwith trap party. The evidence of Shivnarayan Sharma leads presumption that due to grudge with respondent, Mahendra Dixit conspired with Siyaram Rathore to implicate the respondent in a bribe case. Otherwise, there was no reason for Mahendra Dixit to remain present in Morena on the fateful day and to reach Co-operative Societies Office, Morena along with trap party. Looking to these facts in mind, a close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence is required.

16. Shivnarayan Sharma (P.W. 5) though has been declared hostile on some points but his evidence can be acted upon in favour of the respondent. He admitted that Exh. P-10 to Exh. P-12 were prepared by Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4). After the transfer of Mahendra Dixit, Mr. B.K. Gupta joined the office as Officer-In- charge. This witness categorically admitted that respondent never directed him to stop payment of Tulsiram. He also admitted that the pay roll for the month of February was prepared and the pay rolls of regular employees were prepared jointly, but B.K. Gupta directed him to prepare pay roll of Tulsiram being contingent paid employee that is why pay roll of Tulsiram was prepared separately and due to this reason the pay of Tulsiram was disbursed five days late. The statement of Shivnarayan contradicts the statement of Siyaram Rathore. It is clear from the evidence of Shivnarayan Sharma that respondent never directed him or B.K. Gupta not to prepare the pay roll of Tulsiram. Consequently, statement of Shivnarayan Sharma regarding this fact is doubtful. This fact cannot be take as incriminating circumstance against respondent.

17. Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) deposed that when respondent demanded bribe from him, he gave an application Exh. P-13 in S.P. Office, Lokayukt Gwalior. R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W. 7) gave a tape recorder alongwith cassette to complainant to tape conversation regarding demand of bribe by respondent and Panchnama Exh. P-14 has been prepared. R.S. Ghuraiya also corroborated the testimony of complainant. Siyaram Rathore deposed that he went to respondent and contacted him regarding the bribe transaction and recorded conversation. He handed over the tape recorded alongwith cassette to R.S. Ghuraiya and Panchnama Exh. P-15 and transcript Exh. P-23 have been prepared. R.S. Ghuraiya in Para 19 of his cross-examination admitted that he was not acquainted with the voice of respondent. He also admitted that he never heard respondent's voice before that and bare speculation he identified the voice of complainant. He also admitted that after hearing cassette and on the information of Siyaram Rathore, he prepared transcript Exh. P-23. Learned Trial Court rightly held by giving cogent reasons that transcript Exh. P-23 is not a reliable document and on the basis of this document, no presumption can be drawn against respondent.

18. Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) deposed that respondent demanded bribe from him on 20-5-1996 and he agreed to pay Rs. 5000/- to respondent. On going through the evidence of Siyaram Rathore, it reveals that as per him, respondent demanded money from him in the month of March or April, 1996. Complainant has not mentioned the date and month of demand of bribe by respondent in his applications Exh. P-13 and Exh. P-1. On going through the cross-examination of respondent, I am of the view that complainant is not firm regarding time and date of demand of bribe from him by respondent in cross-examination. In Para 42 of his cross-examination Siyaram deposed that 10 to 12 days before the trap proceeding, he received message from the respondent for the first time. He also deposed that second time before 4-5 days from 20th, he received message from the respondent. The trap was conducted on 22-5-96. Looking to the above facts, it is revealed that for the first time, complainant received message from respondent before 10 to 12 days i.e., 10th, 14th and 15th of May, 1996. It is clear from the above discussion that there is contradiction regarding the date and month of demand of bribe by respondent from complainant. Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) in Para 42 of his cross-examination deposed that Shivnarayan Sharma (P.W. 5) and Officer In-charge B.K. Gupta called him (complainant) and asked him to meet the respondent. He also deposed that he met respondent and after that he informed Shivnarayan Sharma and B.K. Gupta that respondent is demanding bribe from him. Prosecution has not examined B.K. Gupta, reason best known to the prosecution. Shivnarayan Sharma (P.W. 5) did not corroborate the testimony of Siyaram Rathore that respondent called complainant through him and B.K. Gupta and after meeting respondent, complainant informed them that respondent is demanding bribe. Consequently, I am of the view that statement of Siyaram regarding demand of bribe by respondent is not reliable and it cannot be accepted beyond doubt. Learned Trial Court appreciating the prosecution evidence in right perspective and giving cogent reasons held that prosecution could not prove the demand of bribe by respondent from complainant beyond doubt. Consequently, I affirm the finding arrived at by learned Trial Court regarding this fact.

19. There is no evidence on record that any proceeding was pending before the respondent to make approval of service of Tulsiram, son of complainant. Prosecution has not approved any rule or law that respondent has power to remove/terminate the contingent employee, i.e., Tulsiram from the service. Contrary to that, it is revealed from the prosecution that no proceeding was pending before respondent to approve Tulsiram on the post or to discontinue his services. Being Accountant Siyaram also knew the fact that no proceeding is pending before the respondent to remove his son from service or to approve the service of his son Tulsiram. No such note sheet or file has been produced and proved by the prosecution during trial. Consequently, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove motive or reason for demand of bribe from the complainant by the respondent. Learned Trial Court on sound reasonings reached to the conclusion that no motive has been proved for demand of bribe from complainant by the respondent, by the prosecution.

20. Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) deposed that trap party again on 22-5-96 reached Morena and sent complainant to hand over Rs. 5000/- as bribe to the respondent. He went there and asked about the respondent. Peon of respondent informed him that the respondent is taking bath. Complainant came down stairs and waited there. Some visitors came to see respondent and after their departure, complainant went upstairs and Bharat followed him. Respondent was sitting on Takhat. He offered money to respondent. He directed complainant to put money on Takhat. He put the bundle of notes on Takhat and gave indication to trap party. Trap party came upstairs. Siyaram Rathore deposed that he came down from stairs and again he did not go upstairs. Trap party completed trap about 1 and 1 1/2 pm till then complainant Siyaram was standing out of the house of respondent. He also specifically deposed that trap party did not call him upstairs during trap proceeding. He also deposed that after completion of trap, he went to his office along with trap party where he signed some seizure memos and other papers. Prosecution declared hostile Siyaram Rathore at this juncture but in cross-examination he specifically and categorically denied that he handed over bundle of notes in the hand of respondent and respondent put notes underneath bed sheet of Takhat. He repeatedly deposed that he kept bundle of notes on Takhat as directed by the respondent. He also denied the fact that the hands of Bhasker Dwivedi were get washed twice, once before putting bundle of notes on Takhat and after putting bundle of notes from Takhat. He also deposed that after giving indication he came down from stairs and trap party went upstairs. He also denied that respondent counted notes putting on his trouser. He also denied that in his presence, Kurta-pyjama of respondent was washed in sodium carbonate solution and solution turned pink. He also denied the factum of seizure of kurta pyjama and notes in his presence. He specifically deposed that he signed on Exh. P-5, Exh. P-6 and Exh. P-8 in his office. He also denied the Lokayukt police recorded his statement, contrary to that he deposed that on the basis of FIR, police recorded his statement. He also denied the factum of giving statement Exh. P-16 (A to A portion). Again on 5-2-2000 statement of Siyaram Rathore was recorded to prove conversation of tape between him and respondent. During re-examination Siyaram Rathore deposed that he put bundle of notes in the hand of respondent and respondent counted the notes in his presence. When he was asked regarding his previous statement, where he deposed that he kept notes on Takhat and did not hand over it to the respondent, he gave explanation that out of fear previously he did not disclose the fact that he gave notes to respondent and respondent counted the notes. Siyaram admitted that he is facing trial for booth capturing. Simply he deposed that out of fear previously he deposed as abovementioned. Siyaram Rathore submitted an application against the respondent in Lokayukt Office, Gwalior and he got arranged trap against respondent. He did not clarify that who threatened hi of to give evidence against the respondent. Looking to the character of this witness, it is not possible that out of fear he would have deposed on 1-12-1997 as abovementioned. I am of the view that on 1-11-1997 Siyaram Rathore got recorded his statement in Court fearlessly and voluntarily. It is natural that when prosecution saw infirmities in the statement of Siyaram Rathore, prosecution filed an application to re-examine this witness to prove conversation between the complainant and respondent in cassette. It is quite possible that prosecution directed him to depose suo motu that he handed over the money to respondent and respondent counted money. Siyaram admitted that previously he gave false statement and now he is telling truth. There is contradiction in the statement of Siyaram Rathore from his previous statement recorded during course of the trial. His statement cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. Learned Trial Court rightly held that looking to the infirmities in the statement of Siyaram Rathore the independent corroboration of his statement is required.

21. As per prosecution, at the time of trap, i.e., on 22-5-96 Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) went upstairs. Bharat followed him and witnessed the whole transaction. Bharat is a witness of handing over the money by complainant to respondent. His statement was also recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC and reveals the same fact, but reason best known to the prosecution Bharat has not been examined. Bharat was an important witness regarding handing over the money to respondent by complainant. Non-examination of Bharat leads strong presumption that if he would have been examined by the prosecution, his statement would have gone against the prosecution. Non-examination of Bharat is fatal to prosecution. It is clear from the prosecution story and statement of Siyaram Rathore that the whole episode took place for an approval of the service of Tulsiram, son of complainant, but Tulsiram has not been examined by the prosecution. Tulsiram also would have been best witness to prove the fact that the respondent threatened his father not to approve his services or to remove him from service and demanded bribe by respondent. Non-examination of Tulsiram is fatal to prosecution.

22. On going through the evidence of Bhasker Dwivedi (P.W. 1), Siyaram (P.W. 4), R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W. 7) and seizure memo of notes Exh. P-4 it is proved that bundle of notes was seized from Takhat. It is also proved by the evidence of these witnesses that when trap party reached in the room of respondent, the bundle of notes was on the Takhat. Learned Trial Court rightly held that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that bundle of notes was seized from Takhat of respondent.

23. Bhasker Dwivedi (P.W. 1) deposed in Para 7 of his statement that bundle of notes was on Takhat but one note of the bundle was in crushed condition. He deposed that note was crushed, as it was crushed by palm. He also admitted in Para 34 of his cross-examination that crushed note was lying near the bundle of notes and it was separated from the bundle. He also admitted that crushed note was from the same bundle which was used in trap. He also admitted that the bundle of notes was fresh when it was handed over to complainant. Uparbal Singh who happens to be constable deposed that when he reached in the room, he found a note lying on the floor of room. He also admitted that without struggle or scuffle this note cannot be separated from the bundle. He is unable to explain how that note separated from the bundle and fell on the floor. R.S. Ghuraiya in Para 30 of his cross-examination deposed that bundle was found on takhat, but he denied the fact that one note was separated from bundle and it was lying separately. He is deposing against the statement of above witness. It is settled principle of law that if there are two sets of evidence, the evidence favourable to the defence should be accepted. Consequently, statement of R.S. Ghuraiya is not reliable regarding this fact. It is proved by the evidence of Uparbal Singh and Bhasker Dwivedi that one note was separated from new bundle of notes and it was found in crushed condition, but this fact has not been mentioned in seizure memo Exh. P-4 and R.S. Ghuraiya is also not giving true version regarding this fact, which shows that investigation is not fair. R.S. Ghuraiya in Para 29 of his statement admitted that after trap he called local police force for help. He also admitted that ordinarily when law and order situation arises then only he calls local police, but he denied that the case in hand, the law and order situation occurred and he called local police. He could not explain why he called local police. Looking to the whole statement of this witness totality of circumstances regarding calling of local police it may be presumed that at the time of trap, law and order situation arises and some scuffle took place. Consequently, R.S. Ghuraiya called local police for help.

24. On going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is revealed that respondent objected and struggled during trap. He was crying that police man rubbed note containing phenolphthalein powder in his hand. When R.S. Ghuraiya reached in the room of respondent at that juncture Constable Uparbal Singh and Ummed Singh caught hold both the hands of respondent. After that, the hands of respondent were got washed and his kurta was also washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. Looking to the facts, i.e., bundle of notes was found on takhat it has not been handed over by the complainant to respondent, i.e., respondent did not take bundle of notes in his hand from complainant and did not count notes. One note was found crushed on the floor or near bundle of notes, respondent struggled and he was crying that phenolphthalein powder was rubbed in his hand and R.S. Ghuraiya called local police for help leads to the presumption that respondent did not receive bundle of notes in his hand and he did not count money and some struggle took place. It is quite possible during struggle that the hands of respondent would have come into the contract of phenolphthalein powder and while dipping fingers and kurta of respondent in sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink.

25. I have gone through the impugned judgment, prosecution evidence and documents on record, I am of the view that learned Trial Court giving sound reasons came to the conclusion that respondent has not demanded bribe from complainant Siyaram Rathore and did not receive the bribe money from the complainant and it is quite possible that Siyaram Rathore kept money on the takhat of the respondent, without his knowledge. On going through the evidence, I am of the view that two views are possible, one is that respondent has received bundle of notes as bribe and second view is that respondent has not received bundle of notes from the complainant as bribe, but complainant might have kept bundle of notes on takhat of respondent and at the time of trap, some struggle took place and one note separated from bundle and was lying in crushed condition. This view is possible that during scuffle, phenolphthalein powder would have come into the contact of respondent's hands and kurta. It is settled principle of law that if on the basis of prosecution evidence, two views are possible then view taken by Trial Court should not be set aside and it has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Awadhesh v. State of M.P. .

26. In the case in hand, Siyaram Rathore (P.W. 4) hostile and did not support handing over the money in the hands of respondent. There are material contradictions and unnaturalities in the statement of prosecution witnesses. There is possibility to falsely implicated the respondent in a false case at the instigation of Mahendra Dixit. The fact of demand of bribe by respondent has not been proved by prosecution. There is no evidence on record to prove that respondent or his higher officer gave notice to terminate or remove the son of complainant from service. It is not proved that any file or note sheet was pending before him (respondent). In that scenario, in view of 2004 Cri.LJ NOC 100 (Orissa), Niranjan Bharati v. State Orissa and 2000 Cri.LJ 4591, State of Madhya Pradesh v. J.B. Singh, it cannot be held that respondent demanded bribe from complainant. In view of , Meena (Smt) W/O Balwant Hemke v. State Of Maharashtra., it cannot be held that respondent received bribe money from the complainant. In the citation, recovery of note was not from the person or table drawer of accused. Consequently, it has been held by the Supreme Court that such recovery does not conclusively lead to inference of acceptance of bribe by accused. The case in hand, there is ample evidence on record that respondent did not receive bribe in his hand, but was kept on takhat of respondent and bundle of notes was seized from takhat and one note was found in crushed condition on the floor or near bundle of notes. These facts lead to the conclusion that recovery of notes is not proved from the person of respondent and it cannot be presumed that respondent received bribe money.

27. It has been vehemently argued by learned Public Prosecutor that bundle of notes, i.e., Rs. 5000/- was seized from takhat of respondent where he was sitting and this fact proves that respondent demanded bribe from the complainant. Learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. State of M.P. 1997 (1) MPWN SN 194, has held that recovery of currency note from the possession of respondent/accused would not give rise to any presumption that accused/respondent demanded the amount. Consequently, it cannot be presumed that respondent demanded bribe from the complainant and he received bribe money from the complainant.

28. As per above discussion, I am of the view that prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that respondent Anil Kumar Verma demanded bribe from the complainant and received the same from the complainant Siyaram Rathore. Prosecution has failed to prove charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the "Act" against the respondent. Learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality and perversity in passing the impugned judgment and acquitting the respondent of above-mentioned charges.

29. Consequently, appeal has no force and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Impugned judgment of acquittal is hereby affirmed. Bail bonds stand discharged.