V.G.PALSHIKAR,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is filed by the accused -appellant challenging the impugned judgment dated 18.12.1982 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti -Corruption Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 19/79 convicting the accused -appellant for the offence under Section 5(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 161 I.P.C. and awarding six months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 161 I.P.C. and two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/ - (Rs. three hundred) for offence under Section 5(1)(D) of the Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also canvassed before me. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned Counsel for the accused -appellant and the learned P.P., I have scrutinsed and reappreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution story as disclosed on reappreciation stated briefly is that one Joyab Ali, who examined as P.W. 6 lodged a complaint that the accused demanded from him bribe for not registering an offence against him. The offence alleged to have been committed by the complainant was rape. It is alleged that the accused Mohan Lal called the complainant Joyab Ali in police station telling that he has been accused of rape by a woman called Barki and he would require a sum of Rs. 500/ - (Rs. five hundred) to hush up the matter. The complainant alleged that he agreed to give the money, got himself released on bail and then lodged a complaint with the anti -corruption department, Jodhpur. On the basis of this complaint, investigation started against the accused. The appellant was trapped and arrested and prosecution was accordingly launched. The learned trial Judge has convicted the accused as aforesaid, against which this appeal is directed.
(3.) MR . Manish Shishodia, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following questions: (i) there is no independent evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe except the interested testimony of the complainant. (ii) In this case, the trained money was admittedly recovered from the next table than that of the accused still the hands of the accused disclosed that they were tainted. (iii) There is candid admission on the part of the complainant that he had shaken hands with accused and it is in this manner that the powder was transferred to the hands of the accused. (iv) The prosecution has examined Barki P.W. 3 who is alleged to have been raped by the complainant. She has stated on oath that she was neither molested nor raped by Joyab Ali. This evidence of the witness Barki, who has also denied the lodging of any complaint with the police in regard to any molestation or rape by Joyab Ali, knocks down the basis of the entire prosecution case. (v) It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused wanted to bring it in the complaint lodged by Barki and when he came back the money was taken up from the table next to that of the accused. It was proved to be trained money. Hands of the accused were also put to test and they were also found tainted. In view of the admission that there was a shaking of the hands between the accused and complainant, the mere fact that the hands were tainted, loses significance and in view of the discovery of notes from another table and not from the person of the accused, destroys the connection between the tainted money and the accused. For all these reasons, it is prayed that the accused is entitled to be acquitted. ;