The trial court convicted the accused under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the defense argued that Section 8 was incorrectly applied, as it pertains to the giver of the bribe, not the receiver. The evidence and allegations suggest the accused, a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe, which falls under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. The appeal against the conviction under Section 8 is allowed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to frame the charges correctly under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2). The accused is to be released on bail pending further proceedings.

Evidence of Demand and Acceptance

• Direct Evidence: Testimonies from PW1 (complainant) and PW2 (shadow witness) indicating the accused demanded and accepted a bribe.
• Circumstantial Evidence: Call Detail Records (CDRs) and chemical analysis reports corroborate the bribe demand and acceptance.

Procedural Aspects

• Pre-Trap and Post-Trap Procedures: Proper procedures, including phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate to mark the currency notes, were followed during the trap.
• Chemical Analysis: Reports confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein on the accused's hands and the recovered bribe money.

Defense Arguments

• Incorrect Charge: The defense argued that the charge under Section 8 was incorrect since it pertains to the giver of the bribe, not the receiver.
• Lack of Sanction: The defense claimed that no sanction was obtained under Section 19, required for taking cognizance of an offense under Section 7.

Prosecution’s Position

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution argued that the evidence sufficiently proves the accused’s involvement and supports the conviction.
• Application of Law: The prosecution contended that while the section invoked may be disputed, the facts clearly establish an offense under Sections 7 and 13.

Conclusion and Recommendation

• Re-evaluation of Charges: The conviction is supported by evidence but the legal provisions were incorrectly applied. It is recommended to re-evaluate the charges under the correct sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• Remand to Trial Court: The appeal is allowed with a modification to reflect the correct sections. The matter is remanded to the trial court to frame the charges correctly and proceed according to the law, including obtaining the necessary sanction under Section 19.

Order

1. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
2. The judgment and order of conviction dated 26.10.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for ACB, Nagpur in Special (ACB) Case No. 7/2010 is set aside and quashed.
3. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to obtain proper sanction for prosecution under Section 19.
4. Upon obtaining the necessary sanction, the prosecution may proceed afresh according to the law.
5. The accused, Sanjay s/o Wasudeo Chintmalatpure, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

A copy of this judgment is to be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance.