Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988–Secs. 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2)–Penal Code, 1860–Secs. 220 & 392/120-B–Conviction–Sustainability–Allegation that the appellant brought the complainant and two other persons to the police station and asked them to hand-over the whole money otherwise he will book them in the case of rape–PW 15 categorically stated that the accused-appellant B, who is present in the Court, had no conversation with him and he did not demand any money–PW 20 also stated that at the police station, the Inspector neither demanded any money nor threatened them–Demand and acceptance of the bribe by both the accused-appellants could not be proved–There is no certificate of transcript of conversation as required u/s. 65-B of the Evidence Act–Further, there is no iota of evidence or conversation as regards any demand made by the appellants in transcript–Furthermore, it cannot be said that the alleged complaint made by M was seized from the conscious possession of the accused-appellant B or his belongings–There is no evidence with regards to criminal conspiracy–Conviction under the provisions of PC Act cannot be sustained–Findings of Trial Court in regard to conspiracy are perverse and contrary to record–There was a plea of appellants that the three persons were booked u/s. 151 Cr.P.C. and they admitted their guilt before the SDM and they did not make any complaint before the SDM–Ample evidence on record to show that during patrolling, the police went to the place where three persons were entangled with each other and had scuffled with the police and to maintain the law and order, they were taken to police station and booked u/s. 151–No offence is also made out u/s. 220 –No allegation against the appellants for theft or extortion–Appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the offence u/s. 392–Conviction for all offences set aside.
