Bhanwaroo Khan, J. - (1.) - A case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against respondent no.1 Satya Krishna Sharma for demanding Rs. 15,000/- as bribe from Hanuman Sahai, respondent no.2. When the Anti Corruption Bureau arranged the trap this demanded amount of bribe could not be traced but lateron accused Satya Krishna Sharma suo moto deposited the said amount in the court. During pendency of the case, complainant Hanuman Sahai moved an application for handing over the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to him on the ground that he handed over Rs. 15,000/- to the officers of the Bureau for applying powder and putting signatures and in the presence of the officers of the Bureau he handed over the amount to the accused. The learned trial Judge i.e. the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Jaipur by the order dated 2.7.2002 observing that regarding the amount deposited by the accused in the Court will be passed at the time of conclusion of the trial, ordered the Bureau to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to complainant. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the learned trial Judge, the State has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(2.) Heard learned P.P. and perused the order passed by the learned trial Judge.
(3.) It is borne out from the facts that at the time of trap the tainted money was not recovered from the possession of the accused but lateron it was deposited by him. So prima facie it could not be said that this is the tainted money or the bribe money which was handed over to the accused respondent by the complainant before the raid.The court has directed the department to give Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as the money belongs to the complainant himself as at the time of arranging the raid the same amount was given by him to the department. There exists no rule for return of the money. The trial court while keeping this matter pending has ordered the department to give money to the complainant.;