Uday Singh Jain vs State of M.P.

Mrs. Justice S.R. Waghmare

This appeal has been filed u/s 374 of the Cr.P.C. by Uday Singh Jain being aggrieved by judgment dated 18.01.06 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Shajapur in Special Sessions Trial No. 3/2002 convicting the accused for offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 2,000/-and for offence u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentencing him to 2 years RI with fine of Rs. 3000/-and in case of failure to pay the fine he was to undergo an additional sentence of 3 months RI. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Manoj Kumar Bhatnagar P.W.1 was the owner of land bearing Survey No. 1626/19 near Ujjain Road which was registered in the name of his minor son Harshad. From the said land area of 20 x 40 = 800 Sq. Ft. was sold by Manoj P.W.1 to Satyaprakash P.W.2 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-and sale deed was prepared after purchasing of stamp of Rs. 2000/-. Thereafter complainant went to meet the accused Uday Singh who was Sub Registrar. The accused informed that besides the stamp of Rs. 2000/-already purchased, in addition, another worth Rs. 6000/-of stamps would be required. And since the complainant expressed inability to pay so much money, the accused Uday Singh informed him if he paid him Rs. 1200/-he would register, the deed on stamp fees of Rs. 2000/-only; by using his good offices. He stated that he would endorse a note as tip for the Registrar, Shajapur that the deed was OK and would get the sale-deed registered. The accused called the complainant Manoj Kumar for payment of Rs. 1200/-on 12.10.01 at the office at 1 PM. Thereafter the complainant Manoj PW1 decided to get the accused, trapped red handed and hence met the Police Superintendent Lok Ayukta Establishment Ujjain and filed a written complaint Ex.P/1. The Police Superintendent instructed Aurn Kumar Samadhia, Inspector; P.W.13, to investigate the matter and two panchas were also summoned and in front of these witnesses Ashok Kumar Shukla P.W.8 and Tek Chandra Sharma P.W.9; the complainant Manoj P.W.1 was introduced and informed of the complaint Ex.P/1. Tek Chandra Sharma endorsed the complaint as a witness and the complaint was read out to him in front of the complainant Manoj P.W.1. The complainant accepted that the complaint was according to his instruction and the FIR Ex.P/26 was thereafter recorded by the Lokayukta Special Police Establishment, Ujjain against the accused Uday Singh and offence was registered at crime No. 0/24/01 for offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a copy was sent to the Special Police Establishment Lokayukta, Bhopal vide Ex.P/27. Thereafter he recorded the crime at No. 203/2001 and thus the Ex.P/26 and P/ 27 are the reports regarding the crime dated 13.10.2001 and 17.10.2001 respectively. The complainant Manoj was handed over 12 currency notes of Rs. 100/-each total sum of Rs. 1200/-. Tek Chandra Sharma P.W.9 counted the notes and the numbers were noted down by Ashok Kumar Shukla P.W.8. P.W.5 Mangilal the peon dusted the phenolphthalein powder and thereafter the complainant was examined and he was asked to take away all the articles that were in his pocket and the phenolphthalein dusted notes were placed in his pocket. Complainant Manoj was thereafter instructed not to touch the currency notes and not talk anybody on the way and only handover the money to the accused on receiving the pre-signal. Thereafter sodium solution was prepared in an utensil and the complainant was asked to wash his hands and the solution did not change the colour. Similarly when the peon Mangilal P.W.5 washed his hands the colour to be dark pink which was seized and placed in two bottles and duly sealed. Two small pouches of powder were provided and they were also sealed and taken along with the trap party. The trap party reached the place of incident only after Ex.P/2, the panchnama regarding the washing of the hands and the number of the trap members vide Ex.P/3 panchnama, took action for conducting the raid. They went to a dhaba at Agar and complainant Manoj P.W.1 was asked to fetch the disputed sale deed. Tek Chandra Sharma P.W.9 accompanied him and thereafter the registered sale-deed Ex.P/5 was compared with the original sale deed and the trap members were asked to again wash their hands with the phenolphthalein solution, the solution did not change the colour and the panchnama is Ex.P/4. Thereafter the complainant Manoj Kumar P.W.1 along with printed currency notes and the document for registration went into the office of the accused and after coming out, gave pre-determined signal; whereupon, rushing inside constable Sachidanand Singh P.W.4, Halkai Prasad held the hands of the accused. Thereafter the panch witnesses, the complainant, and the trap party, all the members rushed into the room of the accused and the members introduced themselves and washed the hands of the accused in the sodium carbonate solution. The solution turned to light pink, the same was collected and sealed duly; then the hands of the complainant were also washed in the solution and solution again turned pink, that solution was collected and duly sealed. On asking the accused regarding the currency notes accepted as bribe; the accused has stated that the money was in the table drawer. When Tekchand Sharma (P.W.9) the panch witness opened the drawer, he did not find the same. The accused stated that he had given the currency to one Paras Kothari (P.W.7) who was sitting in front on the bench. Paras Kothari admitted that he had taken currency notes from the accused and from the left pocket of his shirt he removed the money and kept it on the table. Then Tekchand Sharma (P.W.9) counted them, and the numbers were tallied by the members of the trap party, and found them to be the same which had been given by dusting phenolphthalein powder to the complainant Manoj. Thereafter the currency notes were placed in an envelope which was also sealed duly. Similarly separate solutions by washing hands of Tekchand Sharma, Paras Kothari P.W.7 and the shirt left packet of Paras Kothari P.W.7 were also washed in the solution and the solution were maintained in different bottles and duly sealed. The entire procedure was completed and the seizure memo Ex.P/6 was duly prepared. The original sale deed prepared on the stamp paper of Rs. 2000/-and the receipt was seized vide Ex.P/8(C) and Ex.P/7. The receipt of supurdgi was Ex.P/9 (since the same was handed over on supurdgi to the complainant Manoj vide the supardgi panchnama Ex.P/9). The spot map Ex.P/10 was prepared. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P/21. The arrest memo and the letters of appointment etc of the accused were seized vide Ex.P/13 to Ex.P/16 and the other sale deeds indicating the market value of the adjoining lands was Ex.P/17. The seized articles were sent for the FSL vide Ex.P/24. The FSL report is Ex.P/25. On completion of the investigation and receipt of the sanction from the department vide Ex.P/18 the chargesheet for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was duly filed. The accused on being committed, abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. In his statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. his defence was that the complainant had placed the bribe money; that is, currency notes on his table and he had just pushed the notes away since the stamp was of insufficient amount and he had directed that u/s 47-A of the Stamp Act proper proceedings would have to be taken before the Collector of stamps. He had neither made a demand for bribe nor had he received any money and the accused stated that he was being falsely implicated in the matter. He however did not examine any witness in his defence. The Trial Court on considering the evidence convicted and sentenced him as herein above indicated and hence the present appeal.

The impugned judgment of conviction has been attacked by the Counsel for the Appellant primarily on the ground that the case was false implication. He urged that the accused as Dy. Registrar had no jurisdiction in the matter to impose the stamp fees or to make recommendation to the Collector. The judicial process u/s 47-A provides for an appeal and the question of recommending the case to the Collector would not arise at all. The entire story of demand was concocted by the complainant. Moreover Counsel submitted that the complainant had himself turned hostile in Court and it was the complainant Manoj P.W.1 who had pressurised the Dy. Registrar to record the document. There was no endorsement as such, no documentary evidence was brought on record; despite which the accused has been convicted. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances the demand was not at all proved. Relying on Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, Counsel stated that the improbability of the circumstances which does not establish for sure, either giving or taking of the bribe, and then the accused would be entitled to an acquittal. Counsel urged that even if defence of the accused is considered he has stated categorically he had pushed away the money. Similarly if it was a trap case then why had the shadow witness not followed the complainant into the room of the accused when he was handing over the money. The acceptance was also not proved and the money (tainted currency notes) have not been recovered from the possession of the accused. They have been recovered from the one Kothari P.W.7 and there is no consistent version that the accused had taken the money. He stated that neither the motive nor demand nor acceptance was proved as required under the provisions of law and Counsel prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction be set aside.

Relying on A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, Counsel urged that the Apex Court had while considering the another case C.K. Damodaran Nair Vs. Govt of India, 7 considered that the word "obtain" means to secure or gain (something) as the result of request or; effort is the dictionary meaning of word and in case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that context a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence u/s 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1947 unlike an offence u/s 161 IPC, which, as noticed above, can be, established by proof of either ''acceptance'' or ''obtainment''.

The legal position is no more res integra that primary requisite of an offence u/s 13(1)(d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence u/s 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be established.

Hence Counsel urged that the core question that has to be answered whether there is sufficient legal evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused for offence u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and in the instant case Counsel stated that when there was reasonable doubt since the money had been recovered from the person of Shri Kothari who is not the accused then it cannot be said that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Relying on Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 339) Counsel urged that the Apex Court had considered the case where the materials on record did not support the prosecution and P.W.2 had accepted that after some altercation with accused, she had put the money on the table and there was no evidence of voluntarily demand and acceptance of money; the Apex Court had held that the conviction is not sustainable and had set aside the same by extending benefit of doubt.

Relying on Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), Counsel urged that when there were inconsistent statements then the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. Counsel stated that the evidence of the complainant in the present case was highly unreliable. Counsel prayed that the conviction be set aside.

Relying on C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, Counsel stated that although there was a presumption u/s 20, the accused can rebut the charge and the burden of proof on accused u/s 20 is not the same as the burden placed on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt.

Relying on Sita Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan, Counsel urged that the complainant had not proved the story of payment of money beyond reasonable doubt and hence the presumptions u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 could not be drawn for convicting the accused.

Relying on Ganga Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar, ) Counsel stated that the Apex Court had held that the officers must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court and the court is not left in any doubt whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. It is also their duty to safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap case may have been laid.

Counsel thus urged that if the defence of the accused is mere probable then it should be accepted and no conviction should be made against the accused. Relying on T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Counsel urged that the complainant has proved to be inimical towards accused may be considered the Apex Court had in the said case held that if the explanation given by the accused immediately after the incident raises serious doubt about amount having been received by him as illegal gratification then mere denial by said witness that he had sent money through complainant cannot be a ground for holding the accused to be guilty and the guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was entitled to an acquittal. Counsel also relied on Aher Raja Khima Vs. The State of Saurashtra, , Smt. Meena Hemke Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Pubjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2002 (1) M.P. Weekly Notes [72] (SC)), G.V. Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Administration), , Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra, Ramjanam Singh Vs. State of Bihar ( 1956 SC 643(S) )and Bhupesh Deb Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Tripura, to bolster his submissions.

Counsel for the respondent/Police Estt. Lok Ayukta on the other hand argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that there was overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution and it has been proved by the appellant that at the relevant point of time the accused was working on the post of Sub-Registrar and was concerned with the registration of the sale deed at the relevant point of time then it can be held that there was motive for the appellant to make demand of bribe.

Counsel has categorically stated that the three ingredients necessary to prove the offence i.e. motive, demand and acceptance are all proved by the prosecution in the present case. Whereas witness P.W.1 Manoj Kumar, P.W.2 Satyaprakash and P.W.7 Paresh Kothari have been declared to be hostile but their entire evidence cannot be discarded and that part of the version which supported the prosecution is definitely admissible in evidence. Referring to the evidence of P.W.1 Manoj Kumar Counsel stated that in impugned para-2 the complainant has categorically stated that the accused Udaysingh was the Dy. Registrar at the relevant time and he had gone to him for getting the sale deed registered along with the map and at that time the accused had asked for Rs. 6,000/-for the registration. He had already prepared the sale deed of stamp of Rs. 20,000/-and thereupon the accused had asked for Rs. 6,000/-stamps in addition. In para-7 of his deposition he has stated that in the office of the Registrar he handed over Rs. 1200/-which were dusted with the phenolphthalein powder to the accused Udaysingh and thereafter the Lokayukta Police had come and caught hold the hands of the accused and on washing the hands of the accused the solution had turned pink. So also on questioning the accused as to where the tainted money was kept he had stated that the same was kept in the drawer table in front of him. Thus clearly according to the Counsel there was proposal and acceptance of money. P.W.2 Satyaprakash has stated that he had purchased the disputed plot from complainant Manoj and the land was to be registered in his name. The agreed amount was Rs. 20,000/-and complainant Manoj would pay the charges for the registration and the stamp fees etc. In impugned para-4 of his deposition he has categorically stated that the accused had asked for Rs. 6,000/-stamps in addition and on discussion with the complainant Manoj they had found the amount excessive and accused Udaysingh had therefore agreed to complete the job only for Rs. 1200/-and this completely supported the prosecution case according to the Counsel. He further urged that whereas P.W.7 Paras Kothari the lawyer in the case, has deposed in impugned para-4 of his deposition, that, when the accused was being questioned as to where the tainted money was kept and the money was not found in the drawer; this witness had himself told the trap party that the complainant had given the money to him before and he had kept it in the left side pocket of shirt and thereafter he had removed from his pocket and had given to one of the member whom he could not recall.

In addition Counsel stated that P.W.10 Nitin Atal who was also a lawyer, he has in impugned para-2 of the judgment stated that he was on the spot at the time of the incident and had gone to the office of the Dy. Registrar because he had seen the crowd of people standing there and he had learnt about the case against the accused. On the spot itself this witness however has not supported the prosecution case and could be at the most be relied on to indicate that the incident had taken place on 12.10.2001. Counsel also drew attention of this Court to the testimony of Ashok Kumar Shukla P.W.8 who was the Asst. Revenue Officer at Ujjain at the said time and he is the trap witness and witness of seizure regarding the application Ex.P/8. He is also to the witness of the fact that before dusting, Shri Tek Chandra Sharma had counted 12 notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-and noted their numbers. Similarly the solution had turned pink on washing of the hands at the time of depositing the notes and instructions were also given by him and on indication by the pre-arrange signal he had gone into the office of the accused Dy. Registrar and held his hands and washed them in the carbonate solution which had turned pink.

Thus, Counsel stated that the acceptance was fully proved in accordance with the provisions of law and all the procedure was duly followed. The trap panchnama and the testimony of P.W.9 Tekchand Sharma also more or less clinches the issue according to him. Moreover presumptions u/s 20 were available to the Department and unless proved otherwise the fact of demand, acceptance and motive of illegal gratification have completely been established in accordance with the provisions of law.

Counsel relied on Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2001 CR. L. J. 175) to state that the Apex Court had held word ''gratification'' must be understood to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it. The fact, that the public servant is found in possession of currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein is sufficient to draw legal presumption u/s 5(2) of the Act 1947 and the prosecution need not further prove that money was paid to the public servant.

Similarly placing reliance on M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Counsel stated that the Apex Court had held in the said case that when the prosecution had proved that the accused received gratification from the complainant; then, in the circumstances Court can draw legal presumption that said gratification was accepted as reward for doing a public duty. Moreover standard required for reaching the conclusion would be that which prudent man acting in any matter concerning him would arrive and the word ''proof'' need be understood in the sense in which it is defined in the Evidence Act and the Apex Court had referred to Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 and drawn its parallel with Section 4(1) of the old Act 1947.

Finally Counsel submitted that thus in the instant case all the three ingredients mens rea i.e. motive for illegal gratification, demand and acceptance of the bribe have all been fully established and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

On considering the above submissions and the evidence on record, we find that singular question that arises for our consideration is whether the accused appellant Udaysingh received the illegal gratification primarily because the money (tainted currency notes) were recovered from P.W.7 Paras Kothari and not from the person of the accused. Therefore instead of discussing of the evidence that has already been noted herein, we would like to confine ourselves to the question of acceptance of the bribe.

In this light examining the evidence of complainant Manoj Kumar P.W.1, we find that the shadow witness has not accompanied the complainant inside the office of the Tehsildar. The conviction is based on the testimony of the complainant Manoj Kumar alone, who in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case has become hostile in Court and therefore his testimony has to be scrutinised with great care. In impugned para-3 of his deposition in Court, he submits that there was no demand made by the accused from him for registering the sale deed. The accused had only stated that the acceptance would come to Rs. 1200/-and there was no more discussion on the subject. Yet in the next para itself he admits that he had gone to the office of Lokayukta Police Estt. at Ujjain and filed a written complaint against accused Udaysingh; that, if he gave Rs. 1200/-in addition the sale deed would be registered. Thereafter the trap procedure was followed and this witness in para-7 submitted that he had gone into the office of the Tehsildar and paid the money to the accused and thereafter the Lokayukta Police had caught hold the hands of the accused and washed the same in the carbonate solution. And when the complainant was asked by the police as to where the money was kept, he had told them that he had kept it on the table and he failed to keep the money in the drawer of the table and whereas he has also candidly admitted that the currency notes were recovered from Paras Kothari P.W.7, the advocate and on washing the hands of both the complainant as well as Paras Kothari, the bicarbonate solution had turned red in colour and the shirt of Paras Kothari was also washed and had turned red in colour and the panchanama of this episode was Ex.P/2 and P/3. In impugned para-13 this witness has admitted that in a prior discussion, the accused had stated that for the registration of the sale deed, stamps of Rs. 6000/-in addition were required; however, accused Udaysingh would complete the job in the stamp of Rs. 1200/-. At the same time this witness/ complainant has admitted that he had given the complaint in writing against accused Udaysingh. There are also material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of this witness/complainant regarding the procedure of the trap that was followed. It is also noted from record that this witness was a lawyer by profession yet this witness has not been steadfast in his cross-examination. Moreover in impugned para-32 he has stated that two constables were standing outside the office of the Tehsildar, the accused in the present case and whereas the shadow witness had not come inside the office. He has also declared that the spot map Ex.P/10 was prepared on his instruction. He has also admitted that Satyaprakash P.W.2 had accompanied him at the time of the filing written complaint.

Further in this light considering the testimony of P.W.2 Satyaprakash; we find that he is a constable in the office of the Lokayukta, Ujjain and he was a member of the raiding party. He submits that the complainant Manoj had entered into the office of the accused and he was following the complainant and just in front of the office of the accused; there was an open area from where he, along with the other constables watched for the signal of complainant Manoj and thereafter they had entered into the office and caught hold the hands of the accused Udaysingh, after he raised them over his head. And thereafter the hands of the accused were washed in the carbonate sodium solution and it turned light pink in colour. In impugned para-6 he submits that the complainant Manoj had gone up the stair case and had made the signal from upstairs to those who were standing below on the ground.

Similarly when the testimony of the investigating officer Arun Kumar Samadhia P.W.13 is considered we find that although he has initially stated all the facts regarding the conduction of the raid, he was also the receiver of the written complaint from the complainant. He stated in impugned para-15 that he had entered into the office of the accused to find both the constables of the trap party were holding the hands of the accused Udaysingh and the trap witnesses were also there; whereas, in front of the table of the accused, two persons were sitting. Thereafter the members of the trap party were introduced to the accused Udaysingh Jain and his hands were duly washed in the carbonate solution which had turned light pink in colour. This witness in para-19 states that on being questioned about the tainted currency notes; he submitted, that the accused had told them that the currency notes were in the drawer of the table and in impugned para-20 he submits that he had removed the notes from the drawer of the table and at the same time on the next breath, he submits that on opening the drawer, he had not found the currency notes and at that time the accused had confessed that the notes were given to one Paras Kothari who was sitting in a Bench in front of the table and the person sitting on the Bench called Kothari had admitted that he had the tainted notes in his possession. And Shri Kothari had introduced himself and removed the money from his pocket. The currency notes were counted by the witness P.W.13 Shri Sharma who found 12 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-each total of Rs. 1200/-. He had compared the numbers to the numbers noted by him previously and found them to match. In this light therefore it would be of utmost importance to consider the testimony of Paras Kothari P.W.7.

At this juncture it is equally important to note that this witness has also been declared to be hostile and the fulcrum of the question regarding "acceptance" of gratification would definitely rest on the testimony of this witness. In impugned para-3 this witness states that when he was about to reach the office of the Registrar; he had met two persons coming out of the office and he had seen them running briskly into the office before and he has himself entered hurriedly into the office of the Dy. Registrar and he had found that these persons were holding the hands of the accused Udaysingh. Thereafter the hands of Udaysingh had been washed. In para-4 he submits that when the accused was asked, where the tainted currency notes given by him the complainant were kept, he had answered that the notes were given by the complainant to him and he had kept them in the left hand pocket of his shirt and he had handed over the notes to the police officers. His hands had also been washed with carbonate solution and they had turned pink in colour. The shirt was seized and washed left hand side of the pocket and the solution had turned pink. On admission by this witness Paras Kothari P.W.7 that the shirt belonged him the prosecution had declared him to be hostile. He has refused to have given any statement to the police. He has also refused in impugned para-7 that he was sitting in front of the table to the accused Udaysingh at the time of the incident which is contrary to the statement made by complainant Manoj P.W.1. This witness also refused that the accused has kept any money in the table which was later kept in the drawer by the accused or the fact that the registered sale deed was kept on the table and Udaysingh left the room or the fact that accused Udaysingh had handed over the money to him for keeping. In fact he has denied the entire incident later and it is in this light that the entire prosecution story crumbles and it is in this light that we find that the learned Judge of the trial Court has erred in coming to the finding that there was "acceptance" by the accused of the tainted money. Placing our reliance on Smt. Meena Balwant (supra) we find that under similar circumstances the Apex Court found that the recovery was not made from the person or table drawer of the accused and the Apex Court held that such recovery does not conclusively lead to inference of acceptance of the bribe by the accused and the Apex Court had held that the materials on record were not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused appellant and had set aside the conviction as well as the sentence and the fine amount as paid was directed to be refunded.

Also considering the fact that Counsel has pointed out from Rule 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1889 (Registration of Rules of Madhya Pradesh) that it was not the Tehsildar within whose jurisdiction it was to impose the stamp fees and make recommendation to the Collector. Moreover the judicial process u/s 47-A provides for an appeal if at all the accused was aggrieved and hence the story of demand is also not very successfully proved by the prosecution.

Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case we find that factum of "acceptance" of bribe has not been properly established and the guilt of the accused is not firmly established. Then reasonable doubts can also be raised as to where the tainted money has been kept, after acceptance. The accused appellant has been successful in sufficiently rebutting all the presumptions u/s 20, since admittedly the money has been recovered from the pocket of P.W.7 Paras Kothari and no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution regarding this fact.

Consequently the accused has been able to establish by the preponderance of the probability that the acceptance of bribe was never made by the accused. In the aforesaid circumstances we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the learned Special Judge has erred in convicting the accused. We therefore set aside the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The appeal is allowed. The accused appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him from offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond are hereby discharged.