JUDGMENT 1. - The instant application seeking leave to appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan challenging the judgment dated 02.07.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act., Jodhpur in Cr. Regular Case No. 19/2007 arising out of F.I.R. No. 201/2004 PS. Anti Corruption Bureau acquitting the respondent from the charge under Section 7 and 13(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court whilst considering the application for leave to appeal issued show cause notice to the respondent on 29.02.2012. The respondent has put in appearance in person and argued the matter himself. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that one Surendra Vaishnav submitted a written report before the S.P Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur to the effect that a false case had been registered against his maternal uncle P.B. Ramchandra Vaishnav at Police Station Raipur Dist. Pali under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC being F.I.R. No. 96/2004. The investigation of the said F.I.R. was being conducted by the respondent Murlidhar Gaur who was posted as the Circle Officer, Jaitaran at the relevant time. The complainant alleged that the C.O. Murlidhar Gaur started demanding bribe from P.B. Ramchandra his maternal uncle, the accused in F.I.R. No. 96/2004. He further alleged that the respondent had called up his uncle on phone and demanded bribe giving a threat that the bribe should be paid or else the respondent CO. would implicate him in a case of rape. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that the respondent demanded that Rs. 50,000/- bribe should be paid to him or else the accused Ramchandra would face dire consequences. It was further mentioned in the report that as the informant's uncle resided at Madras therefore he could not travel down immediately and thus the informant approached the respondent C.O. on 26.08.2004 and on that day again the respondent persisted with his illegal demand of Rs. 50,000/-. After bargaining the bribe amount was settled at Rs. 20,000/-. It is alleged that the respondent informed the first informant that the amount of bribe should be paid to him immediately or else a case would be registered under Section 376 IPC against the accused in F.I.R. No. 96/2004. At the conclusion of the report the complainant mentioned that his uncle was not desirous of giving bribe to the accused and that he be punished for the demand of illegal gratification. At the conclusion of the report the complainant mentioned that his uncle was not desirous of giving bribe to the accused and that he be punished for the demand of illegal gratification. Upon receiving the said report, the S.P. Anti Corruption Bureau. Jaipur assigned the proceedings to the Addl. S.P. Crime Branch on 27.08.2004. Shri D.C. Sharma Dy. S.P. was sent along with the respondent for verification of the demand of bribe. The informant called the Circle Officer on his mobile number from a land line number at Jaipur. It is alleged that as per the telephonic conversation, the demand of bribe was verified and was recorded in an audio cassette. The verification transcript was prepared and the cassette was sealed. Thereafter the complainant was called to the R.T.D.C. Guest House, Barr on 29.08.2004. On 29.08.2004 the Addl. S.P. formed a team and initiated the trap proceedings. The complainant (decoy) Sh. Surendra along with Panch Witnesses Sukh Ram Choudhary, A.En. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and Girdhargopal met the trap party at the R.T.D.C. Guest House Barr. The formalities for laying the trap were rehearsed in presence of the panchas and the decoy and thereafter the currency notes worth Rs. 18,000/- presented by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were given back to the complainant for being passed on as bribe to the accused. The complainant was also provided with a mini tape recorder and was instructed to record the conversation with the accused at the time of passing over of the currency notes. The complainant called the accused on his land line number and thereafter the complainant as well as the Panchas were sent to the house of the accused and behind them two of the employees of the Anti Corruption Bureau were also sent to take stock of the situation. The other members of the trap party took up their respective positions. At about 9.45 P.M., the complainant came out of the house of the accused and gave the pre-arranged signal where after the Addl. S.P. gave signal to other members of the trap party to reach the house of the accused and accordingly the trap party reached there. The decoy informed the members of the trap party that the accused was inside his house and that on his instruction, the bribe money of Rs. S.P. gave signal to other members of the trap party to reach the house of the accused and accordingly the trap party reached there. The decoy informed the members of the trap party that the accused was inside his house and that on his instruction, the bribe money of Rs. 18,000/- had been placed by the complainant under a tray lying on the table in his drawing room. 3. On ringing the bell of the main gate, a person wearing a night gown opened the gate. The Additional S.P. introduced himself and then entered into the house of the accused. The person who had opened the gate upon enquiry disclosed his name to be Murlidhar Gaur Dy. S.P. Circle Officer Jaitaran. The trap party entered into the house of the accused and the Trap Laying Officer i.e. Addl. S.P. asked the accused about the acceptance of bribe on which initially the accused became apprehensive and later on told that he had not taken any bribe. He further told that somebody projecting himself to be an advocate had come to his quarter and had made an enquiry about F.I.R. No. 96/2004 P.S. Raipur and that the accused took the said person to his drawing room. The advocate was accompanied by another man and on enquiry it was informed that the person accompanying him was his cousin. The accused further stated that he had neither demanded nor had accepted any bribe money from anybody. On this, it is stated that the complainant refuted the statement of the accused and told that the accused Circle Officer was investigating the F.I.R. of dowry harassment going on against his uncle P.B. Ramchandra and that the accused had called his uncle and had asked his uncle to send his representative to meet him for the purpose of taking bribe to give benefit in the F.I.R. No. 96/2004. The complainant further alleged that he had met the accused CO. at his house on 26.08.2004 and requested him that the case was totally false. The accused was further informed that the anticipatory bail applications of all the concerned persons had been accepted. The complainant further alleged that he had met the accused CO. at his house on 26.08.2004 and requested him that the case was totally false. The accused was further informed that the anticipatory bail applications of all the concerned persons had been accepted. The accused is alleged to have said that acceptance of the anticipatory bail would not matter at all because the matter was still being investigated by him and that if his demands were met he could remove the names of the three persons from the array of the accused in the said F.I.R. The complainant further alleged that the accused CO. demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- for the said purpose and ultimately after bargaining the bribe amount was settled at Rs. 20,000/-. Thereafter the accused called the complainant to his residence with Rs. 20,000/- and assured him that his work would be done. The complainant told that as instructed by the accused he had placed the tainted currency notes under a tray lying on the table in the drawing room. 4. It is alleged that the hands of the accused were washed by the members of the trap party in a solution of sodium carbonate on which the wash turned murky. On further search being taken, a bundle of notes worth Rs. 18,000/- was found lying under the tray lying on the plastic table in the drawing room. Upon tallying, the numbers of the recovered notes were verified to be the same which were submitted by the complainant to the Trap Laying Officer. Thereafter the investigation file of the F.I.R. No. 96/2004 was summoned. The trap proceedings were allegedly video-graphed and upon hearing the recording in the mini tape recorder given to the complainant it was allegedly found that recording disclosed the conversation between the accused and the complainant. The cassette was sealed. The house of the accused was searched and a sum of Rs. 1,16,580/- was recovered from the house. The accused allegedly gave some explanation for the same. The accused was arrested and thereafter released on bail. The matter was sent to the headquarter for the registration of the case where F.I.R. No. 201/2004 was registered and investigation commenced. 5. During the course of investigation the statements of various witnesses were recorded. 1,16,580/- was recovered from the house. The accused allegedly gave some explanation for the same. The accused was arrested and thereafter released on bail. The matter was sent to the headquarter for the registration of the case where F.I.R. No. 201/2004 was registered and investigation commenced. 5. During the course of investigation the statements of various witnesses were recorded. The prosecution sanction was sought & received and ultimately a charge- sheet was laid against the accused for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1) (D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Jodhpur. The learned Special Judge took cognizance against the accused on 18.07.2007 and the relevant copies were supplied to the accused as per Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 15.02.2008 for the aforesaid offences, charge was framed against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. At the trial the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents. The accused upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant. He further submitted that he had an outstanding career throughout his service tenure. He further stated that the local M.L.A. hatched conspiracy with the advocate Surendra Vaishnav the complainant and got a false case filed against him. He also claimed that Surendra Vaishnav conspired with his uncle Ramchandra and filed a false report against him. He specifically submitted that he did not demand any bribe. He further submitted that the investigation of F.I.R. No. 96/2004 was not pending with him and had been completed a month prior to trap proceedings and the case diary had been sent to S.P. Pali for approval after completing investigation on 29.07.2004. He further mentioned that investigation of the anti corruption case registered against him was done by various police officers who proposed a negative final report and sent the same to the Bureau Head Quarter. He contended that the complainant connived with certain police officers bearing grudge against him and managed to have charge-sheet filed against him without any justification.The accused examined three witnesses in support of his case and exhibited 11 documents. The trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to hold that the explanation given by the accused for the recovered bribe amount of Rs. The trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to hold that the explanation given by the accused for the recovered bribe amount of Rs. 18,000/- was substantiated and justified from the evidence available on record. The trial judge held that the complainant Surendra Vaishnav was having old grudge with the accused respondent Murlidhar Gaur. It was noticed that the Investigating Officer N.L. Pawan after completing investigation initially proposed a final report Ex.D4 in the matter. After that the complainant submitted an application for re-investigation and the matter was re-investigated by the new I.O. Mr. P.R. Javeria. During the I course of the said investigation, Dy. S.P. Arjun Singh was sent to investigate the matter from Ramchander the person from whom the bribe was allegedly demanded and thereafter the subsequent investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet in the matter without there being any evidence regarding the demand of bribe and the acceptance thereof. The trial judge also held that the prosecution had with-held the important witnesses Lata Manoj, Deepak Dayma and Mukesh Sharma and, therefore, adverse inference had to be drawn against the prosecution. The trial Judge also came to the conclusion that the explanation given by the accused regarding the seized trap money was logical and credible. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the tainted currency notes had been recovered from under the tray lying in the drawing room of the accused but in view of the attending circumstances, from the mere recovery of currency notes the presumption under Section 20 of the PC. Act could not be drawn against the accused. The trial Judge held that the explanation given by the accused regarding the recovered currency notes and the defence evidence which had been led at the trial was sufficient to rebut the presumption and ultimately acquitted the respondent from the charges holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and the acceptance of bribe by the accused Murlidhar Gaur. 7. Now, the State has approached this Court by way of instant application for leave to appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent as stated above. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor contended before this Court that there was ample evidence on the record of the case to show that the investigation of the F.I.R. No. 96/2004 for the offences under Section 498A, 406 and 323 I.PC. was pending with the respondent. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor contended before this Court that there was ample evidence on the record of the case to show that the investigation of the F.I.R. No. 96/2004 for the offences under Section 498A, 406 and 323 I.PC. was pending with the respondent. Despite the accused having been granted anticipatory bail, the respondent threatened Ramchandra the accused in F.I.R. No. 96/2004 that the offence would be aggravated to Section 376 I.P.C. and he would be arrested unless the demand of bribe for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was satisfied. The learned Public Prosecutor stated that the demand of bribe has been substantiated by positive evidence, and thereafter the amount of bribe which was settled after bargaining viz. Rs. 18,000/- had been recovered from under the tray lying on the table in the drawing room of the accused. Thus, he argued that the trial Judge was not at all justified in acquitting the respondent from the charges. The learned Public Prosecutor also contended that the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge regarding existence of enmity between the accused and the complainant Surendra Vaishnav was absolutely baseless. He also contended that in view of the fact that the bribe money has been recovered from the drawing room of the house where the accused was residing, the burden of proof shifted on to the accused for refuting the fact that did not accept the bribe. As such he prayed that it was a fit case for grant of leave to State to file an appeal for challenging the acquittal of the accused. 9. Per contra the respondent Murlidhar Gaur appearing in person submitted to this Court that the prosecution had failed to prove against him the allegation regarding demand of bribe or the acceptance thereof, and therefore, the trial Judge had rightly acquitted him of the charges. 9. Per contra the respondent Murlidhar Gaur appearing in person submitted to this Court that the prosecution had failed to prove against him the allegation regarding demand of bribe or the acceptance thereof, and therefore, the trial Judge had rightly acquitted him of the charges. He also contended that the prosecution had failed to prove that the investigation of the F.I.R. No. 96/2004 was pending with him on the date of the trap, and therefore, there could not have been any justification for the complainant to have approached the accused for the purpose of gaining any benefit in the investigation of the said F.I.R. He further submitted that there was positive evidence on record for showing that the complainant Surendra Vaishnav was bearing enmity with the accused and due to this, he in connivance with the local M.L.A. planted the tainted currency notes in the drawing room for falsely implicating the accused. He submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe being made by the accused, and therefore, also there was no reason for interfering in the well reasoned Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge. He stressed upon the fact that Ramchandra Vaishnav PW3 in regards to whose case, the bribe was allegedly demanded by the accused did not support the prosecution story and specifically stated that neither the respondent called him in regard to investigation of the F.I.R. No. 96/2004 nor did Surendra Vaishnav inform the witness regarding any demand of bribe made by the accused. The respondent contended that the witness Ramchandra further stated that he did not send any amount to Si}render Vaishnav for being paid to the accused Murlidhar. He has referred to the cross examination of the said witness wherein the witness has clearly mentioned that Murlidhar Gaur never demanded any bribe money from him. The respondent has further stressed upon the fact that the witness of the trap proceedings viz. Sukhram Choudhary has clearly stated that after the recovery of the tainted currency notes from under the tray lying on the table in the respondent's drawing room the respondent specifically stated that he had not taken any bribe. The respondent has further stressed upon the fact that the witness of the trap proceedings viz. Sukhram Choudhary has clearly stated that after the recovery of the tainted currency notes from under the tray lying on the table in the respondent's drawing room the respondent specifically stated that he had not taken any bribe. He referred to the statement of Raghunath Singh, PW2, the constable of Circle Office, Jaitarain who in his cross examination stated that the respondent had already completed investigation of F.I.R. No. 96/2004 finding the offence under Section 498A and 406 I.P.C. proved against Ramchander and Bhagyavati Devi. He further laid stress on the statement of PW5 Surendra the complainant and particularly referred to the part of cross examination wherein Surendra Vaishnav has admitted the following facts:[Vernacular Matter ommitted. [Ed.] 10. Laying stress on the said portions of the deposition of the witness, the respondent submitted that from these admissions made by the complainant in his cross examination, it is manifest that the respondent never demanded any bribe from the witness Surendra Vaishnav. He further stated that the witness Ramchandra PW3 has also denied the fact that the respondent demanded any bribe from him. Thus, he submitted that as there was no evidence on record to the effect that the respondent demanded any bribe from any person, prima facie the case of the prosecution had to fail and was rightly discarded by the trial Judge. The respondent has also referred to the statement of PW 12 Dan Chand Sharma, Dy. S.P. A.C.B. who participated in the trap proceedings in this case and referring to the cross examination of the witness, the respondent submitted that the witness admitted that none of the members of the trap party overheard the conversation which transpired between the accused and the decoy at the time of passing of currency notes. He has also brought to the notice of the Court the statement of the witness PW16 N.L. Pawan, Addl. S.P. who investigated the matter. Referring to the cross examination of the witness, the respondent submitted that in the cross examination the witness has made following admissions:[Vernacular Matter ommitted. [Ed.] 11. He has also brought to the notice of the Court the statement of the witness PW16 N.L. Pawan, Addl. S.P. who investigated the matter. Referring to the cross examination of the witness, the respondent submitted that in the cross examination the witness has made following admissions:[Vernacular Matter ommitted. [Ed.] 11. He has specifically referred to the portion of the cross examination of the witness wherein the witness stated that he recorded the statement of Ramchandra, Ex.D5 wherein Ramchandra admitted that Murlidhar Gaur never demanded any bribe from him, nor did he provide the bribe money to Surendra. He also referred to the cross examination of the said witness wherein witness admitted that respondent, in response to the notice for giving his voice sample came to give his voice sample but since the witness was busy, the voice sample could not be taken. He also referred to the statement of M.A. Tariq Trap Laying Officer who has been examined as PW 17 and in his deposition has admitted that videography of the trap proceeding was conducted. He has specifically referred to the cross examination of the said witness wherein the witness has admitted that when the solution of the sodium carbonate was prepared for taking the wash, the accused raised an objection that some employee of the Bureau had stirred the solution with a pen. The respondent has referred to the cross examination of this witness wherein the witness admitted that the transcription of the voice recording which was exhibited by the prosecution as Ex.P15 had no recitation about the accused having threatened the complainant and then having demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- or a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as bribe. He referred to the cross examination of the witness wherein the witness admitted that upon hearing the cassette recorded during trap proceeding, no voice was heard in the said recording. The respondent on the basis of the said short-comings in the prosecution evidence and the salient features appearing in these depositions of the above mentioned witnesses contended that as neither the fact regarding the demand of bribe was proved nor the acceptance thereof established, the respondent was rightly acquitted in this case. He has also placed on record a certified copy of the opinion of the Dy. Director (Prosecution) supplied to the respondent under the provision of Right to Information Act wherein the Dy. He has also placed on record a certified copy of the opinion of the Dy. Director (Prosecution) supplied to the respondent under the provision of Right to Information Act wherein the Dy. Director (Prosecution) opined that it was not a fit case for filing an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in this case. He thus prayed that the State's application for being granted leave to file an appeal against the respondent's acquittal, deserved to be rejected. 12. After hearing the arguments canvassed from both the sides and after going through the evidence on record, it is manifest from the facts stated above it can be conclusively held that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to prove that the respondent demanded any bribe in the case. Ramchandra, the effected person for giving benefit to whom the bribe was allegedly demanded has appeared in the trial as PW3 and has stated that the accused never called him nor did he demand any bribe from him. He has also stated that he never sent any bribe amount to his nephew Surendra Vaishnav for being given to the respondent. Surendra Vaishnav PW5 the decoy complainant too in his cross examination as reproduced here-in-above has admitted that the accused did not demand bribe from him nor was he given any threatening. That apart the voice recording Ex.P15 which has been placed on record is in relation to the verification of demand of bribe. Admittedly no comparison of voice recording has been done in this case. The accused was called and appeared to provide his voice sample upon notice being given by the I.O. Sh.N.L. Pawan. Though in absence of a scientific comparison, the recording is not admissible in evidence, despite that if the transcription Ex.PI 5 is perused, then too in the said transcription of voice recording there is hardly a word spoken by the accused revealing any demand of illegal gratification by the accused from the decoy. Admittedly, from the material available on record, the file of the F.I.R. No. 96/2004 which was investigated by the respondent had been forwarded from the office of the respondent in July, 2004 to the S.p. Office, Pali. The trap proceedings were laid on 27.08.2004, on which date no work was pending with the respondent. Though it is true that the pendency of the respondent. The trap proceedings were laid on 27.08.2004, on which date no work was pending with the respondent. Though it is true that the pendency of the respondent. Though it is true that the pendency of the proceeding/work is not a sine qua non for holding an accused guilty under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act but the fact of non-pendency of work cannot be without significance. 13. The tainted currency notes in this case have been recovered from under a tray placed on a table in the drawing room of the respondent. The decoy Surender Vaishnav admitted that after he went in the house of the respondent, the respondent asked him to be seated and went inside for getting water for the witness and a time of about 4 to 5 minutes was spent in this process. The decoy was all alone during this time and was in a position to plant the notes. In this view of the matter, the possibility of the currency notes having been planted by the complainant decoy cannot be ruled out in this case. The fact which lends support to this conclusion is that admittedly after the decoy had left the currency notes under the tray, the accused locked the door and. went inside. After some period the trap party reached inside the house of the accused and till that time the accused made no attempt for removing the currency notes from under the tray. If at all the accused had known about the currency notes having been placed under the tray. then the natural reaction of a normal man would have been to remove the currency notes immediately. The non removal of the currency notes by the accused despite ample opportunity being available to him clearly indicates and points towards his innocence. 14. As has been discussed above, the recording of the conversation at the time of exchange of the bribe money was not audible as per the admitted case of the prosecution. Therefore, neither there is any corroboration on record regarding the demand of bribe being made by the accused nor regarding the acceptance of bribe having been done by the accused in this case. 15. Therefore, neither there is any corroboration on record regarding the demand of bribe being made by the accused nor regarding the acceptance of bribe having been done by the accused in this case. 15. So far as the aspect regarding the wash of the hands of the accused giving positive test for presence of phenolphthalein powder is concerned, suffice to say that the complainant has not alleged in his testimony that the accused handled the tainted currency notes. The currency notes were found lying under the tray in the same position as were left by the complainant meaning thereby that the accused did not handle the same. Therefore report of the F.S.L Ex.P27 which has given positive test for presence of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate cannot be of any significance. As has been mentioned above, the witness M.A. Tariq. Trap Laying Officer has admitted in his cross examination that when the solution of sodium carbonate was prepared the accused made any objection about some Bureau Official having stirred a pen in the solution. In view of the said fact the possibility of the proceedings of taking the wash of the hands of the accused being tainted cannot be ruled out. Therefore the report of the F.S.L. in this case losses significance. 16. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment of acquittal as recorded by the learned trial judge is based on sound justified and concrete grounds arrived at after due appreciation of evidence and record ad does not call for any interference. It cannot even be held that two views are possible in the matter so as to grant leave to the State to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. 17. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that there exists no justification on record to grant leave to the state to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in this case. 18. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 02.07.2010 passed by the Special Judge. Anti Corruption Act, Jodhpur acquitting the respondent is refused and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. *******