Short Note : 1. This appeal is against conviction and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 161, Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for four years under section 5 (1) (d)/5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, passed by the Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Guna in Special Case No. 1 of 1973 dated 7-5-1974. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution, Shivlal (PW. 2) acting as the spokesman for the aforesaid four cultivators approached Tahsil Office for issuance of the pattas. Further, the case is that when he approached the appellant, the latter asked for Rs. 400. This according to the prosecution was illegal gratification or rishwat ¼fj'or½ which the appellant had asked for. As the cardinal principle of criminal law the burden lies on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the said amount was ¼fj'or½ /illegal gratification. Shivlal (PW. 2) as already stated, is the star/ main witness to say if the amount was being demanded as illegal gratification. Reading through the statement of this witness, it is pertinent to note that nowhere he has mentioned the word ^fj'or* or the equivalent word like ^?kwl* . All that he says is that when he approached the appellant for the pattas, the latter told him to pay Rs. 400 for the same. Thereupon, PW. 2 Shivlal approached Moolsingh (PW. 1), who at one time was a practising advocate and he had admitted that he had left the practice and had now settled in village where he has cultivation and is looking after the same. He has also admitted that cases relating to his lands are pending in the Tahsil Court. When Shivlal (PW. 2) approached him (PW. 1) and told him that the appellant was asking for Rs. 400 for pattas, it appears that this witness Moolsingh (PW. 1) thought that the appellant was asking for illegal gratification. Ultimately, Moolsingh (PW. 2) on his own went to Guna and tried to contact the Collector. Since the Collector was not available, he approached Deputy Collector R. S. Narwaria (PW 10) and told him that the appellant was asking illegal gratification Rs. 400 for issuance of pattas. This led to a plan being arranged and ultimately, recovery of the amount of Rs. 400 was made from the appellant. 3. Since the Collector was not available, he approached Deputy Collector R. S. Narwaria (PW 10) and told him that the appellant was asking illegal gratification Rs. 400 for issuance of pattas. This led to a plan being arranged and ultimately, recovery of the amount of Rs. 400 was made from the appellant. 3. Held : The crucial question raised in arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant was whether this amount of Rs.400 was really towards the demand of illegal gratification. For issuance of patta, prescribed premium has to be paid first and then only Patta could be issued under the signature of the Tahsildar. Admittedly, no premium had been paid at all and no patta was ready for issuance. In these circumstances, there is ample force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not in the hands of the appellant to issue patta without payment of premium and without the signature of the Tahsildar. In this background, the evidence on record needs to be scrutinized to find out conclusively that the amount of Rs. 400 was demanded as illegal gratification (rishwat). 4. On going through the testimony of Shivlal (PW. 2), it would appear that when he (PW. 2) approached the appellant, the latter asked for Rs. 400 for preparing the pattas. It is not said here that this amount was being demanded as 'rishwat'. Then, in para 25 of his deposition, it would appear that the appellant told PW. 2 Shivlal to bring the money and then he would account as to how much would be the premium money. Further, on going through the deposition of Moolsingh (PW. 1), we find that all that he says in para 3 of his deposition, is that PW. 2 Shivlal told him that the reader/appellant was asking for Rs. 400. Here also he did not say if this demand was illegal gratification. Then, it is pertinent to note that this witness Moolsingh (PW. 1) in para 4 of his deposition says that on the next day he went to the appellant with PW. 2 Shivlal and told him (appellant), "They are poor people and don't ask for Rs. 400." 5. Tahsildar was the highest authority directly concerned with the issuance of the Patta. In the ordinary course of things, PW. 2 Shivlal and PW. 2 Shivlal and told him (appellant), "They are poor people and don't ask for Rs. 400." 5. Tahsildar was the highest authority directly concerned with the issuance of the Patta. In the ordinary course of things, PW. 2 Shivlal and PW. 1 Moolsingh would have told the Tahsildar that the appellant was asking for illegal gratification. It appears that nothing of the sort was done by them. Appeal allowed.