Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 I also inquired with the learned A.P.P. as to why the applicant has  not been arrested till this date. The learned A.P.P. replied that, after the  registration   of   the   F.I.R.,   the   investigation   was   undertaken   and   the  applicant was summoned for the purpose of providing his voice sample  for the  Voice Spectrography Test. The applicant did  provide  his  voice  sample and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as regards the  Voice   Spectrography   Test   has   been   received   just   few   days   back.   The  learned A.P.P. further submitted that the report of the Forensic Science  Laboratory   as   regards   the   Voice   Spectrography   Test   is   concerned,   is  'positive'. According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the  voice sample of the applicant matches with the tape recorded telephonic  conversation between the applicant and the original complainant. 

9 On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed  by   Ms.   Moxa   Thakkar,   the   learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor  appearing for the State. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the demand  of illegal gratification by itself is an offence. Even if the trap failed and  the applicant did not accept the bribe amount, the fact that there was a  demand   of   gratification   is   sufficient   to   prosecute   the   applicant.   The  learned A.P.P. pointed  out that  the  result of  the  Voice  Spectrography  Test has come 'positive'. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory  indicates  that the voice sample of the applicant, which was collected,  matches   with   the   voice   of   the   applicant   so   far   as   the   tap   recorded  R/CR.MA/4484/2018 JUDGMENT telephonic   conversation   between   the   applicant   accused   and   the  complainant is concerned. According to the learned A.P.P., this evidence  at   this   stage   by   itself   is   sufficient   to   reject   this   application   seeking  anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the offence under the Prevention of  Corruption Act should be viewed very seriously and no special case has  been   made   out   by   the   applicant   for   grant   of   anticipatory   bail.   No  exceptional circumstances have been shown by the applicant for grant of  anticipatory bail. 

24 Indisputably,   in   the   case   at   hand,   the   trap,   which   was   laid,  ultimately,   failed   and   the   applicant   accused   did   not   accept   the   bribe  amount. Therefore, in such circumstances, prima facie, the case at hand  remains one of demand of illegal gratification. The applicant is a P.S.O.,  and at the relevant point of time, was posted at the Talod Police Station,  District: Sabarkantha. 

25 The plain reading of Section 7 of the Act, referred to above, makes  it clear that mere demand or solicitation by a public servant amounts to  the commission of an offence. So far as the case at hand is concerned,  there is more than a prima facie case of demand of illegal gratification by  the applicant accused from the complainant. This part of illegal demand  of gratification is  prima facie  substantiated by the Voice Spectrography  Test,  the result of which has come 'positive'.