SHARMA, J. - (1.) ON 27. 10. 1979, appellant Asha Ram, Forest Guard received a sum of Rs. 125/- as bribe from PW. 1 Moti Gujar. It was alleged that complainant Moti Gujar had cut some wooden prop from the forest with the consent of appellant, for which the complainant had earlier paid Rs. 50/- to the appellant and at the time when complainant was carrying the prop, the appellant demanded Rs. 125/- more. Aggrieved by the demand, the complainant submitted an application before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Sawaimadhopur, upon which the police arranged for trap and caught the appellant immediately after he accepted the amount of bribe in the Hotel of one Ram Narain situated in village Phalodi and recovered the amount of bribe. Entire formalities were completed at the spot and after taking necessary sanction for prosecution, the appellant was charge sheeted.
(2.) ON the basis of evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 161 IPC and Sec. 5 (1) (d) read with Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. In his explanation, the accused appellant stated that present case is merely an out come of animus which the complainant had against him inasmuch as the complainant used to cut wood from the forest and he being the Forest Guard used to prevent him from doing so. As regards the amount of Rs. 125/- recovered from him, the appellant explained that complainant had given this amount for payment to one Hardev from whom complainant had borrowed. In his defence the appellant has examined DW 1 Munna Lal, DW 2 Ram Karan, DW 3 Hardev and DW 4 Kishan Gopal. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the accused appellant guilty of the offences charged with and accordingly convicted him under Sec. 5 (1) (d) read with Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec. 161 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months imprisonment on the first count and to under go six months' imprisonment on the second count. Hence the present appeal against conviction. The incident is said to have taken on 27. 10. 1979 when accused appellant, who at the relevant time was posted as Forest Guard, alleged to have taken illegal gratification of Rs. 125/- from complainant Moti, PW. 1. The case of the complainant was that earlier he had paid Rs. 50/- to the appellant for permitting him to cut wooden prop (ballies) from the forest land and when he was carrying the prop, the appellant raised a demand of Rs. 125/ -. However, before this amount could be paid, the complainant made a report to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau. Accordingly trap was arranged. The usual procedure for such traps was followed and currency note of Rs. 125/- were recovered from the possession of appellant. According to the complainant, PW. 6 Kana met him in the hotel where trap was arranged. The complainant has stated that he sent Kana to inform the Dy. Superintendent of Police that appellant was present in the hotel. According to complainant Moti, the appellant had stated before the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he had taken this amount from Moti for being paid to Hardeva. In cross examination, the complainant stated that it is wrong to say that appellant stated before the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he will return Rs. 125/- to Hardeva which he had taken from Moti because Moti had borrowed this sum from Hardeva. Undisputedly, witness Kana was with the complainant in the Hotel. The report, Ex. P. 1 submitted by the complainant reflects that PW. 6 Kana was with the complainant and the amount of illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant in his presence. However, PW. 6 Kana has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. PW. 5 Heera is none other than the brother of complainant. He has categorically deposed that complainant Moti and appellant went ahead and talked separately. According to him, Moti did not inform him as to what transpired between Moti and appellant. In cross examination, the witness has deposed that he was hearing the conversation going on between the complainant and the accused appellant. However, he did not hear as to how much amount the appellant demanded from Moti. This witness was also declared hostile, however, Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross examine this witness. Three Motbirs, namely PW 3 Laxmi Narain, PW. 4 Avinash and PW. 8 Bhawani Lal who are witnesses to the trap have also not supported the prosecution version regarding demand and payment of Rs. 125/- in their presence. The trial Judge has based the finding of guilt against the appellant mainly on the testimony of PW. 1 Moti. However, in my considered view, the evidence of PW. 1 Moti in any event does not appears to be wholly reliable. It does not stand proved that appellant demanded illegal gratification. In all such type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained illegal gratification. Further, mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence and therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important and when the accused has come forward with a plea that the currency notes were given to him for being transmitted to one Hardeva, then there must be clinching evidence to show that it was with the tacit approval of the accused that the money had been given to him as an illegal gratification. Unfortunately, as stated above, there is no evidence except that of complainant himself. Since the evidence of complainant Moti, PW. 1 suffers from infirmities I sought to find some corroboration, but in vain. I have not been able to find any other witness or any other circumstances which supports the evidence of PW 1 that this tainted money as a bribe was given to the appellant. In the circumstances therefore, it is difficult for me to hold that accused tacitly accepted the illegal gratification or obtained the same within the meaning of Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act, particularly when the version of the accused in my considered view appears to be just and probable, inasmuch as the appellant has come with a specific pleas since inception of the case as mentioned in Ex. P 1 and admitted by prosecution witnesses that complainant had given the alleged amount for being handed over to Hardeva to clear his debts and that witnesses produced in evidence, including Hardeva, have supported the defence version. It may also be worthy to notice that as stated above, conviction of appellant was based on the sole evidence of complainant Moti PW 1 who had reason to harm the appellant as the appellant in his official capacity as a Forest Guard was duty bound to stop every one from illegal cutting of trees from the forest land, in discharge of his official duties. On the whole, therefore, I am satisfied that circumstantial and documentary evidence created room for doubt that the defence version was probably true and that the statement of complainant Moti which alone is the foundation of conviction against the appellant cannot be accepted without corroboration. I am satisfied that his conviction and sentence should be set aside.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the offences charged with. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. .;