JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 25.2.2002 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the PC Act’), Bastar at Jagdalpur in Special Case No.1 of 1999, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 7 of the PC Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000 with default stipulation Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000 with default stipulation Both the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that at the relevant time, the Appellant was posted as an Accountant in the office of Block Education Officer, Antagarh. Co-accused (acquitted) Fagnuram Bhagat was posted as a Higher Division Clerk (H.D.C.) in the office of Block Development Officer, Antagarh. Chainuram Komra, who was father of Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2) died on 18.1.1998. Chainuram Komra was an Assistant Teacher. His D.R. Gratuity amounting to Rs.64,685 was receivable by the Complainant after giving no objection certificate (N.O.C.) by the Block Education Officer, Antagarh. On 11.6.1998, the Complainant met with Block Education Officer Mr. Bhaskar. He directed the Complainant to meet with the Appellant. On 19.6.1998, the Complainant met with the Appellant. At that time, along with the Appellant, co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat was also present there. Both the accused persons demanded bribe of Rs.8,000 for issuance of the no objection certificate. Since the Complainant did not want to give bribe, he submitted a written complaint (Ex.P10) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. There, the Complainant was given a tape recorder with a blank cassette for recording of conversation of bribe for confirmation of the complaint. On 26.6.1998, the Complainant went to the Appellant. There, both the Appellant and the co-accused demanded bribe from the Complainant. The Complainant recorded the conversation of bribe in the tape recorder. Thereafter, he returned with the tape recorder and the recorded cassette to the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. There, the tape recorder and the cassette were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P13). A transcription (Ex.P12) of the conversation of bribe recorded in the tape recorder was prepared. On 30.6.1998, the Complainant filed a complaint (Ex.P1). Thereafter, he returned with the tape recorder and the recorded cassette to the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. There, the tape recorder and the cassette were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P13). A transcription (Ex.P12) of the conversation of bribe recorded in the tape recorder was prepared. On 30.6.1998, the Complainant filed a complaint (Ex.P1). Panch Witnesses T.K. Dongre (PW1), a Commercial Tax Officer and Badri Sukhdeve (PW4), an Assistant Project Administrator were called. They read the complaint and verified its contents from the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant produced 1 currency note in the denomination of Rs.500 and 10 currency notes each in the denomination of Rs.100, total Rs.1,500 for giving as bribe which was demanded by the accused persons. Their numbers were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. A trap proceeding was demonstrated to the Complainant and the panch witnesses. A trap party was constituted and they proceeded towards Antagarh. When it was found that both the accused persons were not present at Antagarh, the trap party went to Narayanpur and stayed there in the Rest House. On 2.7.1998, the trap party came to know that the accused persons had returned Antagarh. The trap party went to Antagarh. The Complainant was again given a tape recorder with a blank cassette and he was sent to the office of Block Education Officer, Antagarh for recording of conversation of bribe. The Complainant went to the office of Block Education Officer and met with the Appellant there. He recorded the conversation took place between him and the Appellant regarding bribe in the tape recorder. On being demanded bribe of Rs.1,500 by the Appellant, the Complainant gave him the tainted money. The Appellant accepted the bribe money and kept the same in the left pocket of his pant. Thereafter, on being given a signal by the Complainant, the trap party entered the office of Block Education Officer and caught the Appellant. The Appellant took out the bribe money and produced the same before the trap party. Hands of the Appellant, his pant and the recovered currency notes were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which their colour turned into pink. The tape recorder and the cassette were recovered and seized from the Complainant. A transcription (Ex.P6) of the conversation recorded in the tape recorder was prepared. Hands of the Appellant, his pant and the recovered currency notes were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which their colour turned into pink. The tape recorder and the cassette were recovered and seized from the Complainant. A transcription (Ex.P6) of the conversation recorded in the tape recorder was prepared. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the accused persons. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the Appellant and under Sections 7 and 9 of the PC Act against co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat. 3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined by the accused persons in their defence. 4. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court acquitted co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat of all the charges framed against him, but convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in 1st paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant without there being sufficient and clinching evidence against him on record. It was argued that the demand of bribe by the Appellant and payment thereof is not proved. Mere recovery of money from the possession of the Appellant, without there being proof of demand, is not sufficient to hold him guilty. It was further argued that Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2) specifically deposed that co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat had demanded the bribe money, but despite that he has been acquitted of all the charges by the Trial Court and the Appellant has been convicted, which is not sustainable. From the statements of witnesses, it appears that the independent witnesses were present at the spot, but they have not been examined by the prosecution and, therefore also, the prosecution case is suspicious. 6. Opposing the above arguments, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/State supported the impugned judgment. It was argued by him that recovery of the tainted money is proved. From the statement of Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2) and the transcriptions (Ex.P12 and P6), it is well established that the Appellant had demanded the bribe of Rs.1,500 and he had also accepted the same. It was argued by him that recovery of the tainted money is proved. From the statement of Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2) and the transcriptions (Ex.P12 and P6), it is well established that the Appellant had demanded the bribe of Rs.1,500 and he had also accepted the same. Therefore, the prosecution has duly proved the offence against the Appellant. 7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record of the Trial Court including the statements of witnesses with utmost circumspection. 8. In a case of illegal gratification, there are three essential ingredients to constitute the offence. They are (i) demand, (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery. 9. Now, I shall examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the above three essential ingredients. 10. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, the Appellant was posted as an Accountant in the office of Block Education Officer, Antagarh. It is also not in dispute that Chainuram Komra, an Assistant Teacher was father of Complainant Jairam Komra. Chainuram Komra died on 18.1.1998. It is also not in dispute that a due amount of Rs.64,685 was to be received by the Complainant as D.R. Gratuity of his father. 11. In his Court statement, Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2) deposed that as directed by Block Education Officer Mr. Bhaskar, he met with the Appellant and co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat. According to the Court statement of this witness, both the accused persons demanded bribe of Rs.8,000 from him for issuance of relevant order. Thereafter, this witness submitted an application (Ex.P10) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. A panchnama (Ex.P11) was prepared there and a tape recorder with a blank cassette was given to this witness with a direction to record his conversation with the accused persons regarding bribe. This witness further deposed that first he met with the Appellant and told him that bribe of Rs.8,000 was excessive for him and he was able to give only Rs.1,500. On this, the Appellant consented to accept Rs.1,500 and asked this witness to come with the bribe money after 3-4 days. Thereafter, this witness met with co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat. On this, co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat also demanded bribe from him. According to this witness, he recorded his conversation took place with the Appellant and co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat regarding bribe. On this, the Appellant consented to accept Rs.1,500 and asked this witness to come with the bribe money after 3-4 days. Thereafter, this witness met with co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat. On this, co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat also demanded bribe from him. According to this witness, he recorded his conversation took place with the Appellant and co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat regarding bribe. On 27.6.1998, this witness went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. There, the conversation recorded by this witness in the tape recorder was heard. A transcription (Ex.P12) of the conversation was prepared. The tape recorder and the cassette were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P13). This witness further deposed that thereafter he returned to his village. After arranging money for giving as bribe, he again went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur and submitted a written complaint (Ex.P1). He also produced 1 currency note in the denomination of Rs.500 and 10 currency notes each in the denomination of Rs.100, total Rs.1,500 for trap proceeding. The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, a trap proceeding was demonstrated to this witness. He was again given a tape recorder with a blank cassette to record conversation of bribe to be taken place between this witness and the Appellant. This witness further deposed that at the time of trap, he went to the office of the Appellant with the tape recorder. On seeing a gathering there, he waited there for sometime. Thereafter, he met with the Appellant and started the tape recorder. On being demanded bribe, he took out the tainted money from the pocket of his shirt and gave the same to the Appellant to which the Appellant kept in his pocket and told him that his work will be done. Thereafter, on being given a signal by this witness, the trap party entered the office and caught the Appellant. The Appellant took out the bribe money from his pocket and kept the same on table. Hands of the Appellant, his full pant and the recovered tainted currency notes were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solutions turned in pink. This witness further deposed that he returned the tape recorder with the recorded cassette to the trap party. Thereafter, a transcription (Ex.P6) of the recorded conversation was prepared. 12. Hands of the Appellant, his full pant and the recovered tainted currency notes were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solutions turned in pink. This witness further deposed that he returned the tape recorder with the recorded cassette to the trap party. Thereafter, a transcription (Ex.P6) of the recorded conversation was prepared. 12. Investigating Officer S.R. Yuvne (PW12) also deposed that after submitting complaint (Ex.P10) by Complainant Jairam Komra, he had given him a tape recorder with a blank cassette and had prepared a panchnama (Ex.P11) thereof. On 27.6.1998, Complainant Jairam Komra returned the tape recorder and the cassette. Both were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P13). The cassette was heard and a transcription (Ex.P12) of the recorded conversation was prepared. The transcription (Ex.P12) was prepared by Head Constable Ramlal Gangesh (PW8). Ramlal Gangesh (PW8) has also supported the statement of S.R. Yuvne (PW12). There is nothing in the cross-examination of Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2), Investigating Officer S.R. Yuvne (PW12) and Ramlal Gangesh (PW8) on the basis of which their statements could be disbelieved on the above point. I have perused the transcription (Ex.P12). Ex.P12 shows that the Complainant had offered a bribe of Rs.1,500 to which the Appellant had agreed to accept. 13. As stated by Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2), thereafter, he made a written complaint (Ex.P1) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. 14. Both panch witnesses T.K. Dongre (PW1) and Badri Sukhdeve (PW4) have supported the entire case of the prosecution and deposed according to the case of the prosecution. They categorically stated that in the office of Lokayukta, when they met with the Complainant, at that time, they verified the contents of the complaint from the Complainant. The above statement of the panch witnesses is not duly rebutted during their cross-examination. Thus, from the above statement of the panch witnesses and the transcription (Ex.P12), initial demand of bribe of Rs.1,500 by the Appellant is duly established. 15. As stated by Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2), at the time of trap also, he had recorded the conversation took place between him and the Appellant in the tape recorder provided by the Lokayukta office. Transcription thereof is Ex.P6. I have also perused Ex.P6. 15. As stated by Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2), at the time of trap also, he had recorded the conversation took place between him and the Appellant in the tape recorder provided by the Lokayukta office. Transcription thereof is Ex.P6. I have also perused Ex.P6. Relevant contents of Ex.P6 are as under: ^^t;jke %& ¿:i;s nsrs gq,À vHkh nsrk gWaw vLi"V --------- A iUnzg lkS :i;s gks tkgh lj A txrjke %& gkWa Bhd gS A t;jke %& T;knk rks ugha gks ldhl lj A txrjke %& gkWa tSlk Hkh gks fdruk gS t;jke %& iUnzg lkS lj A txrjke %& cukvks QkbYk] cuxs gS nLr[kr gks;yk ckdh gSA^^ 16. From perusal of the above conversation (Ex.P6), it is also clear that at the time of trap also, the Appellant had agreed to accept the bribe of Rs.1,500. 17. With regard to recovery of bribe money also, Investigating Officer S.R. Yuvne (PW12) categorically deposed that on getting a signal from the Complainant, when they entered the office of the Appellant and inquired from him, he told that he had kept the tainted money in the left pocket of his full pant. The tainted money was recovered from him. His hands, full pant and the recovered tainted currency notes were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solutions turned into pink. Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2), both panch witnesses T.K. Dongre (PW1) and Badri Sukhdeve (PW4) and other members of the trap party, namely, Constable Ram Sevak Sinha (PW5), Head Constable Ramlal Gangesh (PW8) and Constable Bhuvan Mandal (PW11) have also supported the above statement of Investigating Officer S.R. Yuvne (PW12). There is nothing in the cross-examination of all these witnesses on the basis of which their statements could be disbelieved. 18. From the above discussion, I find that the prosecution has clearly proved its case of demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe money against the Appellant. Thus, the finding of the Trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record. 19. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.