STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application for leave to appeal under Section 378(i)8(iii), the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court craving leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Udaipur acquitting the respondent Ram Kumar Choudhary from the charges for the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the respondent and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the hands of the accused but were rather recovered from a shelf inside the room of the accused. admitly, the accused was not present in the room when the recovery was effected. No documents to show that any work of the complainant was pending with the accused at the time of the trap proceedings were proved by the prosecution at the trial. The complainant alleged that he, presented the conversation between himself and the accused in which demand of bribe made by the accused was recorded. However, the Trap-laying Officer, did not independently get the demand verified. The trial court also found that the person who recorded the alleged conversation of demand, did not support the allegation that the accused demanded any bribe. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision rendered in the case of V. Sejappa v. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga, reported in 2016 Manu SC 494, considered the issue regarding the burden on the prosecution of proving that the accused demanded the bribe and held that unless the factum of demand is proved, mere recovery of the currency notes would not make the accused liable to conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.