JUDGMENT R.L.Khurana, J.: The respondent, Bhajan Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, stands acquitted of the offences under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, vide judgment dated 23.9.1991 in corruption case No I of 1989. Such acquittal has been assailed by the State by way of the present appeal preferred under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Briefly, the prosecution story may be stated thus. In the year 1986 the accused was posted and working as a Kanungo in Consolidation Circle, Bahr, Tehsil Nadaun. 3. PW.13 Chhajju Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and incharge of Anti-corruption Unit, Hamirpur, on 17.12.1986 received a secret information (hat Prithi Singh. Patwari (Consolidation) of Haiqa Bahl had demanded iHcgal gratification from PW 8 Shakti Chand for entering a mutation on the basis of ~. Will. The District Magistrate, Hamirpur, was apprised of the secret information received. PW 11 Moti Ram the then District Revenue Officer, Hamirpur, was associated and on the following day PW 13 accompanied - - PW 12 Munshi Ram, the then District Inspector of Police, Hamirpur, anc ertain other police officials went to Village Reeh. Constable Prithi Singh ha: earlier been deputed to contact PW 8 Shakti Chand. At Reeh PW 13chhajju Ram fliet PW 8 Shakti Chand and PW 9 Bhagwan Dass. Upon enquiries, PW 8 Shakti Chand disclosed that Patwari Prithi Singh of Halqa Bahl had demanded Rs.100/- as illegal gratification from him for entering the mutation on the basis, of a registered will executed by his father. PW 8 Shakti Chand farther disclosed that the accused had also demanded Rs.200/- as illegal gratification for comparing the mutation to be entered by Patwari Prithi Singh. The statement made by PW 8 Shakti Chand was reduced into writing by PW 13 and : case under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 5(2), Preventon of Corruption Act, 1947, eame to be registered vide F.I.R. No. 21 of 1986 at Police Station Anti Corruption Unit, Hamirpur. 4. On the asking of PW 13 Chhajju Ram PW 8 Shakti Chand produced four currency notes of the denomination of rupees fifty each, after taking the same from PW 9 Bhagwan Dass. 4. On the asking of PW 13 Chhajju Ram PW 8 Shakti Chand produced four currency notes of the denomination of rupees fifty each, after taking the same from PW 9 Bhagwan Dass. Such currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein power and on having been so treated the currency notes were handed over to PW 8 Shakti Chand with instructions to hand ever the same to the accused vide memo. Ex.PH. PW 8 Shakti Chand was further instructed that after handing over the currency notes to the accused, he shou.i give a signal to PWr 9 Bhagwan Dass who in turn was asked to give a signal to Constable Jagdish Chand who was to further give a signal to the riding party. 5. PW 9 Bhagwan Dass accompanied PW 8 Shakti Chand. Constable Jagdish Chand followed them upto the nullah and posted himself across the said nullah. The raiding party consisting of PW. 13, PW 11, PW 12 and Constable Kanshi Ram kept on waiting for the signal from Constable Jagdish Chand near "Kathe-di-Bhatothi". 6. After some time, that is, less than an hour, a signal was received from constable Jagidsh Chand upon which the members of the raiding party rushed to "The office of the accused and apprehended him and brought him to the verandah. On enquiry the accused denied having demanded any bribe from PW 8 Shakti Chand. r.z is alleged to have stated that money was forcibly put in his pocket, by PW 8 SHikti Chand. The four treated currency notes were recovered from the coat pocket o: the accused. He was made to wash his hands. Such hand-wash was then mixed with solution of Sodium Corporate. The colour of such-hand-wash turned pink. The pink coloured hand-wash was scaled and taken into possession. 7. After necessary investigation the accused was arrested. Necessary sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the prosecution of the accused was obtained and the accused was sent up for trial. 8. Upon having been charged to face trial for the offence under section L61, Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the offences against the aroused examined thirteen witnesses in all. 9. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313. The prosecution in order to bring home the offences against the aroused examined thirteen witnesses in all. 9. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313. Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case since he had refused to be a witness against Prithi Singh Palwari instpite of having been compelled to be a witness. No defence was led by the accused 10. The learned trial Judge upon consideration of the material coining before him, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the offences against the accused. He, accordingly, vide the impugned judgment acquitted the accused of the offences charged1 against him. 11. While assailing the acquittal of the accused, the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State-appellant has contended that from the evidence coming on record, it stands proved that the accused demanded Rs.200/- as illegal gratification from PW 8 Shakti Chand and that such amount was paid to the accused by the said PW 8 as bribe by way of treated four currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- each. Such currency notes were recovered from the person of the accused. It was, thus, urged that in view of the provisions contained under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (For short, the Act) it is to be presumed that the accused obtained the money from PW 8 Shakti Chand by corrupt means as illegal gratification and as such, he is liable for the offences under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Act. . , 12. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused that demand of illegal gratification on the part of the accused is fundamental for making out a case against the accused. Absence of such a demand or like evidence in this regard would harm the case of the prosecution and the accused cannot be held guilty. Section 5of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, insofar as it is material for the purpose of the-present case, reads :- "(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct— (a)....:........................;or (c)...............................;or (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or. (e)............,.................. (e)............,.................. (2) Any Public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine; Provided that the court may, for any .special reasons recorded in-writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. (3-A).......:......................... (2) Any Public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine; Provided that the court may, for any .special reasons recorded in-writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. (3-A).......:......................... (4).................................." Section 4 of the Act, which deals with the presumptions to be raised where a public servant accepts gratification, other than legal remuneration, reads:- "(1) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Sec. 161 or Sec. 165 of the Indian Penal Code(45 of I860), or of an offence referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 5 of this Act punishable under sub-section (2) thereof, it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to acceptor attempted to obtain, .hat gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be as a motion or reward such as is mentioned in - the said Sec. 161, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate : (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Sec. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Sec. 5 of this Act, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Sec. 161 of the Indian, Penal Code, 1860, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate; (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I) and (2), the Court may-decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn." Before a presumption available under Section 4 can be raised, the prosecution has to prove that the accused received/accepted a gratification other than legal remuneration. 13. The first question, therefore, winch arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused had accepted any gratification from PW 8 Shakti Chand. 14. “The word obtains appearing in clause (d) of Section 5(1). quoted above, is significant The apex Court in Ram krishan and another v. State of Delhi. AIR 1956 SC 476, while dealing with the meaning of the word obtains has held :-"The word obtains, on which much stress was laid, docs not eliminate the idea of acceptance of what is given or offered to be given, though it connotes also an element of effort on the part of the receiver." In State of H.P. vs: Tej Ram, 1989(2) Sim. L.C. 9, Utc accused therein, who was a Patwari, was prosecuted for the offence under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 5(lXd), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for having obtained illegal gratification of RsriSG/- from lite complainant for giving a favorable report for the grant of Nautor land in his favour. A contention was raised or. behalf of the State that there was no word demand cither in Section 161, Indian Penal Code or in Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Therefore, the demand on the part of the accused was not an essential clement of the offence. Since the legislature in its wisdom, while enacting the provisions has used the word obtains, there was no requirement to prove the demand as an independent fact. Repelling the contentions raised on behalf of the State, it was held:- "It is contended by the learned Deputy Advocate General that there is no word demand in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code or section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, he argues, that demand on the part of the accused is not an essential element of the offence. What is necessary, the learned counsel contends, is obtains and, therefore, there is no requirement to prove the demand as an independent fact as contended by the learned counsel for the accused. Reference is made to AIR 1963 SC (1)116, M.Narayanan Nainbiar vs. State of Kerala. It is not possible to appreciate this argument of the learned Deputy Advocate General. What is necessary, the learned counsel contends, is obtains and, therefore, there is no requirement to prove the demand as an independent fact as contended by the learned counsel for the accused. Reference is made to AIR 1963 SC (1)116, M.Narayanan Nainbiar vs. State of Kerala. It is not possible to appreciate this argument of the learned Deputy Advocate General. In case this argument is accepted the result may be catastrophic and anyone may come forward to levy an allegation of corruption or bribery against a Government servant by just pushing money into his pocket or throwing the same at his table and without even telling him the cause of it. The word obtains, therefore, has been intentionally used by the Legislature and it has a definite meaning. Therefore, before anyone can be proceeded against under these provisions, it is necessary to prove that it was as a result of demand that money was passed on. Passing of money is a consequence of the demand. Cases cannot be eliminated where the initiative to pass the money is taken by a person and the accused pockets the same without raising any objection to its receipt. Therefore, if the present case is examined in the light of this position, it can be safely concluded that the accused did not demand the money for giving a favourable report to Shri Chint Ram (PW 1)." The evidence coming on record, has therefore, to be examined in the light of the above principles. 15. At the very out-set it may be stated that the prosecution, in the present case, has not been able to prove the demand of illegal gratification having been made by the accused. PW8 Shakti Chand has deposed that he had met the accused on 17.12.1986, who demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 200/-for doing his work. Admittedly, none else was present at that time. As per the prosecution story, on receipt of secret information, PW 13 Chhajju Ram, had constituted a raiding party on 18.12.1986" and as per the instructions PW 8 Shakti Chand was asked to hand over the treated currency notes to the accused. 16. 200/-for doing his work. Admittedly, none else was present at that time. As per the prosecution story, on receipt of secret information, PW 13 Chhajju Ram, had constituted a raiding party on 18.12.1986" and as per the instructions PW 8 Shakti Chand was asked to hand over the treated currency notes to the accused. 16. With regards to the event of handing over the treated currency notes by him to the accused, PW 8 Shakti Chand has deposed in the following terms:- "......Then three persons, one Prithi Singh Constable and Bhagwan Dass who had brought me there and one another policy Constable accompanied me. The three persons accompained me stood at some distances-Thereafter I went to Kanungo Bhajan Singh, who was sitting in the house of one Bhagirath. When I asked him to do my job, he also replied in.thc same manner that since the staff had come there and I should do his job and thereafter my work would be done. I then handed over four treated currency -Notes of Rs.50/-denomination to the accused which he put in the right inner pocket of his coat. At that time Bhagwan Dass was standing at a distance of 10 paces from me, who was visible to me.—" A bare reading of the above statement shows that PW 8 has not stated even a single word with regard to the demand of illegal gratification by the accused. The words used are "I should do his job". 17. PW 9 Bhagwan Dass who had accompanied PW 8 and was standing at a distances of about four metres and who claims to have heard the conversation between the accused and PW 8, has gone to state that the accused had asked PW 8 Shakti Chand if he had brought the money whereupon PW 8 had handed over four currency notes of Rs. 50/- each to the accused. 18. The contradiction coming in the statements of PW 8 and PW 9 with regard to the conversation and what transpired between the accused and PW 8 is very vital and the same destroys the truthfulness of the prosecution story. 19. There is yet another aspect of the case. As per PW 8 and PW 9, the accused at the relevant time was sitting in the house of one Bhagirath and the money was handed over to him there. 19. There is yet another aspect of the case. As per PW 8 and PW 9, the accused at the relevant time was sitting in the house of one Bhagirath and the money was handed over to him there. Surprisingly, this Bhagirath has neither been associated in the investigation of the case nor he has been examined as a witness. No explanation has also been offered by the prosecution as to why the said Bhagirath was not joined in the investigation of the case and examined as a witness. 20. As against the version of PW 8 and PW 9, Chhajju Ram Deputy Superintendent of Police while appearing as PW 13 has stated that the accused was apprehended from his office room where the money was paid to him by PW 8. 21. PW 12 Munshi Ram, the investigation officer of the present case has deposed that the accused was paid the money and apprehended at the house of Bhagirath. This witness has contradicted the version of PW 13, the leader of the reading party, as to the place where the money is alleged to have been paid to the accused and from where he was apprehended. PW 11 Moti Ram the then District Revenue Officer, Hamirpur, who was a member of me raiding party, has deposed as follows:- "After about half an hour on receiving the signal from the Constable I along with the police party went to the place of occurrence. First we went to the house where Kanungo Bhajan Singh was sitting. The Head constable brought the Kanungo from his room." The evidence thus coming on the record is self contradictory as to the place where the money was allegedly paid to the accused by PW 8 and from where the accused was apprehended. - 22. It is in the prosecution story that on 15.12.1986 two raids was conducted, that” is, One involving the accused and the other involving Halqa Patwari Prithi Singh had. also demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- from PW. 8 Shakti Chahd. Such amount Was paid by PW 8 through two treated currency notes of Rs. 50/- each on" the same day. 23. PW 8 Has deposed that he had first gone to Halqa Patwari and paid him the money and thereafter he had gone to the: accused. also demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- from PW. 8 Shakti Chahd. Such amount Was paid by PW 8 through two treated currency notes of Rs. 50/- each on" the same day. 23. PW 8 Has deposed that he had first gone to Halqa Patwari and paid him the money and thereafter he had gone to the: accused. P W 9 Bhagwan Dass, on the other hand, has deposed that PW 8 had first gone to the accused and thereafter to the Halqa Patwari. PW 11.Moti Ram, PW 12 Munshi Ram and PW 13 Chhajju Ram are silent on this aspect of the case. 24. It is also significant to note that no independent witness was joined as members of the riaiding party in the present case though there was ample time and opportunity for doing so. .Admittedly, PW 13 had received secret information on 17.12.1986. He had appraised the District Magistrate on that very day. A raid was decided to be conducted on the following day. PW 13 proceeded all the way from Hamirpur with PW 11 and PW 12 to conduct the raid. However, no attempt appears to have been made by PW 13 to join any independent witness. Evidence has come that a number of persons were present in the Patwarkhana in connection with the revenue matters since the Consolidation and Additional Consolidation officer were on tour. 25. The apex Court in Raghbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91, has stressed upon the need of joining, independent, disinterested and respectable persons of the area as members of the raiding party since in the case under the Act has far reaching consequences for a Government servant. It was observed: - "We must take this opportunity of impressing on the officers functioning in the anti-corruption department to insist on observing this safeguard as zealously and scrupulously as possible for the prosecution of public servants against whom a trap may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavor to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court and the court is not left in any doubt as to whether or no in money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. They must seriously endeavor to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court and the court is not left in any doubt as to whether or no in money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. \ye cannot, in the present case, rely on the evidence of Jagdish Raj and Arjun Dass for the purpose of holding that a sum of Rs. 50/- was paid by Jagdish. Raj to the appellant by way of bribe" In State of H.P. vs. Tej Rain (supra), this court has held :- "It is the duty of the prosecution to join independent arid disinterested persons in the raiding partyThe prosecution could have easily. while on way to the place of the accused, included independent, disinterested and respectable persons of the area and locality for evidencing the trap." 26. It was further held that the absence of any explanation by the prosecution for not including independent, disinterested and respected witnesses in the raiding party indicates that the incident as alleged had not taken place and it throws a doubt on the truthfulness of the whole case. 27. PW 9 Bhagwsn Dass alleged to have been joined in the raiding party can neither be termed as independent nor disinterested and respected person. Admittedly, he is the maternal uncle of PW 8 Shakti Chand. besides, he was himself an accused in a case under the Act. He was under suspension and few days before the alleged present incident, he had been released on bail in a corruption case. " 28. Not only that no independent, disinterested and respected witness was joined in the raiding party, no explanation has been offered either by PW 12 or PW 13 for not having done so. Therefore, there is a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution story. 29. Much strees was laid by the learned Assistant Advocate General on the recovery of treated currency notes from the accused. It was contended that such recovery proves that the same were received by the accused as illegal gratification. 30.There is no force .in the contention of the learned Assistant Advocate General. Mere recovery of the treated currency notes from the accused is not sufficient to establish the charge und-r Section 5(2) of the Act against the accused. It was contended that such recovery proves that the same were received by the accused as illegal gratification. 30.There is no force .in the contention of the learned Assistant Advocate General. Mere recovery of the treated currency notes from the accused is not sufficient to establish the charge und-r Section 5(2) of the Act against the accused. The spex Court in G.V. Nanjundiah vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1988 Cri.L.J. 152, has held that when it is found that no demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story in that regard, the Court will view the allegation of payment of bribe to and recovery of the same from the accused with suspicion. The High Court of Delhi in Anand Sarup vs. State, 1988 Cr.L.J. 756, following the ratio laid down by the apex Court, has hcld.:- "In a case of bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. After introduction of S. 165 -A of the Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon." 31. On the facts and in the cumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the offences charged against him. Such acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the appeal falls and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and discharged. Appeal allowed