JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 27th September, 1996 whereby the Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jaipur has acquitted the accused respondent Laduram Chahar in the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act 1988'). 2. The prosecution story is woven like this : That on 25th March, 1992, the accused respondent Laduram was posted as Veterinary Doctor in Veterinary Hospital Malsisar. That day, he being a public servant demanded a bribe of Rs. 300/- other than his lawful remuneration from the complainant Birju Singh in lieu of releasing the health certificate of his Camel. On the complaint of decoy Birju Singh, Dy. S.R Anti Corruption Bureau, Sikar laid a trap and caught the accused respondent Laduram red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs. 300/- from the complainant Birju Singh. The Police Officer recovered the bribe amount from the possession of the accused respondent in the presence of two independent witnesses. 3. After usual investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused in the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the `Act, 1988' where the charge of this offence was read over to him who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case. In the statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused filed a written explanation which was taken on record. The accused examined two witnesses DW-1 Ram Kumar and DW-2 Mohan Lal in defence. On completion of trial the accused was acquitted for the charges as indicated hereinabove. 5. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, learned counsel for the accused respondent and with their assistance scanned the material available on record. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has assailed the impugned judgment of the trial Court on the following grounds : (i) that the trial court has not property appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses: (ii) the demand of bribe amount of Rs. 300/- for releasing a health certificate of camel is very well proved from the statements of PW-7 Chhatrasal Singh and PW-8 Ridhkaran Kaushik. The recovery of Rs. 300/- is also proved from the possession of the accused. 300/- for releasing a health certificate of camel is very well proved from the statements of PW-7 Chhatrasal Singh and PW-8 Ridhkaran Kaushik. The recovery of Rs. 300/- is also proved from the possession of the accused. There is no ground of jettison or disbelieve the testimony of these two police officers as no animosity is found to have been proved between them. (iii) The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge of demand of bribe and obtaining of bribe amount from the possession of ?he accused respondent, as such the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted. 7. Per contra, while drawing my attention to the statements of PW-5 Birju Singh, the learned counsel for the accused respondent has contended that the decoy Birju Singh PW-5 himself has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. Neither the demand of bribe amount of Rs. 300/- nor the recovery thereof is proved from his evidence. The statements of PW-7 Chhatra Sal Singh and PW- 8 Ridhkaran Kaushik are laden with contradictions and inconsistencies. Hence, conviction cannot be based upon the evidence of these Police Officers who are interested in the success of trap. The impugned judgment of the lower Court is well merited and it calls for no interference. 8. It goes without saying that PW-5 Birju Singh is the key witness of the instant case. He has totally denied the prosecution case and thus declared hostile. With regard to the demand of bribe money, this witness has stated in examination-in-chief that it is not the accused who demanded a bribe of Rs. 300/- but it was the compounder of Veterinary Hospital who demanded this amount. He, in fact, filed a complaint against the compounder and the police instructed him to give the money to the accused forcibly who was posted as Veterinary Doctor in the Veterinary Hospital at Malsisar. PW-6 Maluram is the independent witness who accompanied the trap party. Albeit, this witness deposed that Birju Singh gave the money to Laduram but with regard to the search of accused, he has stated that an amount of Rs. 4900/- was recovered from his trouser. He has also stated that it was a common talk at the place of occurrence that the accused was falsely implicated in this case. Another independent witness is PW-4 Nanagram. 4900/- was recovered from his trouser. He has also stated that it was a common talk at the place of occurrence that the accused was falsely implicated in this case. Another independent witness is PW-4 Nanagram. Though, he has not been declared hostile but in his cross-examination he has not supported the prosecution case. The learned trial court has critically examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has arrived at the following conclusion : " vfHk;qDr ij ;g vjksi gS fd mlus fnukad 25-03-92 dks xzke eylhlj esa ifjoknh fcjtw flag ls 300@& #i;s fj'or ds :i esa izkIr dj vkijkf/kd vopkj fd;kA bl ckcr eSaus vkjksi la0 1 dk fu.kZ; djrs oDr` nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr lk{; dk iw.kZ foospu fd;k gS vkSj izLrqr lk{; dk voyksdu dj ;g ik;k gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k bl rF; dks lkfcr djus esa lQy ugh jgk gS fd vfHk;qDr lk/kq jke us ifjoknh ls fj'or ds :i esa 300@& izkIr fd;sA tc vfHk;qDr }kjk 300@& #i;s dh fj'or ekaxuk vkSj 300@& #i;s fj'or ds :i esa izkIr djuk lkfcr ugha gks ldk gS] rks fQj mlds }kjk vkijkf/kd vopkj djuk lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ih0M0 5 fcjtw flag ifjoknh gS] ftlus bl ckr ls badkj fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDr us mlls 300@& #i;s fj'or dh ekax dhA nksuksa eksrfcjku ukuxjke vkSj ekyw jke us Hkh vfHk;qDr }kjk fj'or dh ekax djuk vkSj fj'or dh jkf'k izkIr djuk ugha crk;k gSA ih0Mh0 3 cuokjh yky us Hkh vfHk;kstu i{k dh dgkuh dk leFkZu ugha fd;k gSA ih0Mh0 7 N=lky flag vkSj ih0M0 8 djrkj flag dks oDr ?kVuk mifLFkr crk;k x;k gS] ysfdu ekSds ij cuh QnkZr ij muds nLr[r ugha gSA vr% mudh mifLFkfr lUnsgkLin gSA ih0M0 8 fj)dj.k dkSf'kd us fj'or dh vfHk;qDr }kjk ekax djuk ugha crk;k gS] ysfdu fj'or dh jkf'k 300@& #i;s ifjoknh ls izkIr djuk crk;k gS] tcfd blh foHkkx ds vU; xokgku] tks ?kVukLFky ds ,dne utnhd Fks] us bl izdkj ds ysunsu dks ugha ns[kuk crk;k gSA ifjoknh us Hkh ysu nsu dh ckr dks xyr crk;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ih0M0 8 fj)dj.k ds c;ku egRoghu gks tkrs gSaA " 9. From the prosecution evidence available on record, it is not proved that the accused Laduram demanded bribe or voluntarily accepted it at the time of trape. From the prosecution evidence available on record, it is not proved that the accused Laduram demanded bribe or voluntarily accepted it at the time of trape. Mere recovery of money from the accused is not sufficient to raise any presumption against him. The absence of motive on the part of accused either to demand or accepting bribe renders the whole prosecution story doubtful. The instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of GV Nanjundia v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1987 SC 2402 and the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State or Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 . 10. The impugned judgment of the learned trial court is found to be cogent and well merited and it does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. I am in unison with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the trial Court which to my firm view, calls for no interference.For these reasons, the criminal appeal filed by the State is found to be totally devoid of merits and thus stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******