JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellant Laxman Prasad Raikwar has been convicted under Scetion 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to regorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The prosecution case is that complainant Ram Singh (P.W. 2) needed fifteen pieces of wood for construction of his house in village Bhanpur. He obtained the certificate dated 9.1.1987 (Ex. P-4) from Sarpanch Gram Panchat, Jaitpur Piparia and submitted the application dated 11.1.1987 (Ex. P-3) to the Range officer, Gaurjhamar for supplying the wood to him. Accused Laxman Prasad Raikwar was Deputy Ranger at Gopalpur. The complainant met him in this connection and the accused told him that he would give the verification certificate on payment of Rs. 500/- as bribe. The accused asked him to pay this amount on 13.1.1987 at Gopalpur. The complainant submitted the application dated 12.1.1987 Ex. P-5 to the Deputy Supreintendent of Police (Vigilance) at Sagar. He directed S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9), Inspector (Vigilance) to arrange the trap. S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9) called V. K. Baisakhia (P.W. 4), Assistant Engineer and Ramswaroop Tiwari (P.W. 8), Block Education Officer as panch witnesses on 13.1.1987. The complainant produced five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. These notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the preliminary panchnama Ex. P-8 was prepared. The numbers of the currency notes were noted in this panchnama. The trap party proceeded to Gopalpur. Shokhilal Tiwari (P.W. 6) and Dwarka Prasad (P.W. 13) the constables were also with the trap party. Complainant Ram Singh (P.W. 2) and Saheb Singh (P.W. 7) went to the house of the accused at about 9 p. m. The accused demanded the money. Ram Singh the (P.W. 2) gave the five curency notes Rs. 100/- each to the accused who kept them in the inner pocket of his coat. The accused went inside his room and put his coat on the wall. Ram Singh (P.W. 2) and Saheb Singh (P.W. 7) came out and informed the trap party that the money has been paid to the accused S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9), the two officers and the two constables reached inside the room of the accused. The hands of the accused were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the liquid turned pink. The accused was asked where has he kept the amount of Rs. The hands of the accused were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the liquid turned pink. The accused was asked where has he kept the amount of Rs. 500/- The accused told them that he has kept the money in his coat. Ramswaroop Tiwari (P.W. 8) pikced up the caot from the wall and five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each were found in the inner pocket of the coat. The numbers of these currency notes were tallied with the numbers noted in the preliminary panchnama and these were found to be the same. These currency notes were sealed. The pocket of the coat was also washed in the liquid of the Sodium Carbonate and that also turned pink. The hands of Ram Singh (P.W. 2) and Ramswaroop Tiwari (P.W. 8) were also washed separately in the sodium Carbonate. That liquid also turned pink. The recovery memo also turned pink. The recovery memo Ex. P-7 was prepared and was signed by the panch witnesses. After investigation and the sanction of the State Government (Ex. P-1), the charge-sheet was filed before the special Judge, Sagar. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. His defence is that he has been falsely implicated 4. The Special Judge convicted the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him has stated at the outset. It must be mentioned here that the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came into force on 9.9.1988 and the offence in this case is said to have been committed on 13.1.1987. Therefore, the conviction will have to be treated under Section 161 Indian Penal Coce which was the corresponding provision of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. In this appeal it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no (a) demand or (b) acceptance of the money by the accused. It is further argued that even if it is held that the money was recovered from the accused it is not sufficient to hold him guilty. 6. The documentary and oral evidence on record has been scrutinized by this Court. Ram Singh (P.W. 2) has deposed that he reeded 15 Ballis for construction of his house. He submitted the applications Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3 alongwith the crtificate of the Sarpanch Ex. P-4 to the Range Officer. He contacted the accused. 6. The documentary and oral evidence on record has been scrutinized by this Court. Ram Singh (P.W. 2) has deposed that he reeded 15 Ballis for construction of his house. He submitted the applications Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3 alongwith the crtificate of the Sarpanch Ex. P-4 to the Range Officer. He contacted the accused. He was told by Ratan Patel (P.W. 14), Forest Guard that the accused would not give him the wood until he is paid an amount of Rs. 500/-. He submitted the application dated 12.1.1987 (Ex. P-5) to the D. S.P. (Vigilance) at Sagar. Next day, i. e. on 13.1.1987 he produced five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each before Inspector (Vigilance). Those currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and kept in his pocket and the trap party proceeded to Gopalpur. He told the accused that he has broght the amount of Rs. 500/- asked by Ratan Patel (P.W. 14). The accused asked him to keep the money on the table and take the wood next day. He kept the currency notes on the table. He came out. The trap party raided the house of the accused. He has denied that he gave the money in the hands of the accused. At this stage this witness has been declared hostile. His statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is Ex. P-6. In that statement marked A-A he has stated that he had given the money in the hands of the accused and he had kept the same in the inner pocket of his coat. He has resiled from this statement. On cross-ex(sic)nination by the Public Prosecutor, he has stated that the trap party arrived in the house of the accused and asked him where has he kept the money. Thereupon, the accused told tham that the money is in the pocket of his coat. Then the amount of Rs. 500/- was recovered from the pocket of his coat which was hanging on the wall. Hands of the accused were washed in the liquid and the colour of the liquid turned pink. His own hands were also washed and the colour of that liquid also turned pink. The bottles containing these liquids were sealed. The panchnama Ex. P-7 was prepared and it was signed by him. Further this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the accused. Then he has stated that the demand of Rs. His own hands were also washed and the colour of that liquid also turned pink. The bottles containing these liquids were sealed. The panchnama Ex. P-7 was prepared and it was signed by him. Further this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the accused. Then he has stated that the demand of Rs. 500/- was conveyed to him by Ratan Patel (P.W. 14). He has also stated that he does not know how the currency notes reached in the pocket of the coat form the table. He does not know who picked up the coat from the wall. He has further stated in para 23 that he had not met the accused after his talk with Ratan Patel (P.W. 14) to confirm whether the money is being demanded by him. In his statement Ex. P-6 he has not said that Ratan Patel (P.W. 12) had asked him to pay the amount of Rs. 500/- to the accused. There is also omission in Ex. P-6 to this effect that he had asked him to keep the money on the table and he had kept there. It appears that Ram Singh (P.W. 2) had developed some soft corner for the accused at the time of his evidence and therefore he has introduced the story that Ratan Patel (P.W. 14) had asked him to give money to the accused. In the application Ex. P-5, he had sated that the accused had directly demanded the amount of Rs. 500/-from him. As Ram Singh (P.W. 2) has not supported this part of the prosecution case that the accused demanded the amount of Rs. 500/- from him and since it was not the prosecution case that the demand was made through Ratan Patel (P.W. 14), it. is held that it is not proved that there was direct demand of the amount of Rs. 500/- by acceded from the complainant. Similarly there is matererial contradiction on the point that Ram Singh (P.W. 2) has mentioned in his statement Ex. P-6 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had given the currency notes to the accused in his hands but in his deposition he stated that he had kept the money on the table and thereafter he does not know how the money reached from the table to the pocket of the coat of the accused. But from his evidence it is certain that the amount of Rs. But from his evidence it is certain that the amount of Rs. 500/- was recovered from the inner pocket of the coat of the accused which he was wearing when the amount was paid to him and which was hanging on the wall when money was recovered form the pocket of the coat. 7. S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9) is the Inspector who had arranged the trap. He has deposed that the application Ex. P-5 was given to him by the D. S.P. (Vigilance) and he was aksed to lay the trap. He called V. K. Baisakhia (P.W. 4) and Ramswaroop Tiwari (P.W. 8) as panch witnesses. He introduced Ram Singh (P.W. 2) to them. They had verified the contents of the application Ex. P-5 from Ram Singh (P.W. 2). He produced five currency notes of Rs. 100/ each. This witness has further stated that he had got these currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder by Baburam Dohre (P.W. 3) Clerk of his office, who had kept these notes in the pocket of Ram Singh (P.W. 2). He observed the necessary precautions. He had prepared the preliminary panchnama Ex. P-8 in which he had recorded all hte proceedings. The trap party went to Gopalpur in the jeep. He had further stated that complainant Ram Singh (P.W. 2) came back from the house of the accused and told him that the accused had accepted the money and kept in the pocket of his coat. Thereafter all the members of the trap party entered into the house of the accused. Shokhilal Tiwari (P.W. 6) and Dwarka Prasad (P.W. 13), Constables caught hold of the accused. The hands of the accused were washed in the liquid of the Sodium Carbonate and its colour turned pink. The bottle containing that liquid was sealed. According to the evidence of S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9), Ramswaroop Tiwari (P.W. 8) panch witness was asked to bring the coat of the accused form the wall. He took out the notes from the pocket of the accused. There was some money belonging to the accused in the same pocket. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers recorded in the panchnama Ex. P-8. It was found that these were some notes which had been given to Ram Singh (P.W. 2) for being passed on to the accused. The panchnama which was propared on the spot is Ex. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers recorded in the panchnama Ex. P-8. It was found that these were some notes which had been given to Ram Singh (P.W. 2) for being passed on to the accused. The panchnama which was propared on the spot is Ex. P-9 and it was singed by the witnesess. The hands of Ram Swaroop Tiwari (P.W. 8) were also washed in Sodium Carbonate and the colour of the liquid became pink. Similarly hands of Ram Singh (P.W. 2) were aslo washed in Sodium Carbonate and colour of that liquid became pink. The pocket of the coat was also dipped in the liquid of the Soidum Carbonate and that also became pink. The coat was seized. He recorded the Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-13. He sent it to the Special Police Establishment, Bhopal and there regular F. I. R. Ex. P-26 was recorded. He had sent the coat article 'A' and the bottles of the liquid to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical examination. The reports which were received from the Laboratory are Ex. P-27 and Ex. P-32. According to these reports phenolphthalein powder was found on the pocket of the coat article 'A' and also in the bottle which contained liquid in which the hands of the accused were washed. He had also prepared the spot map Ex. P-24. In corss-examination he has stated that he was not present at the time of payment of the amount of Rs. 500/- by Ram Singh (P.W. 2) to the accused. 8. Baburam Dohre (P.W. 3) had stated that he had applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and kept in the pocket of Ram Singh (P.W. 2). V. K.Baisakhia (P.W. 4) Assistant Engineer is the panch witness. He has stated that he was following Ram Singh (P.W. 2) in the trap party. After Ram Singh (P.W. 2) came out and told that he has paid the amount to the accused, the two constables entered into the house of the accused and caught hold of of his hands. Inside the house Ram Singh (P.W. 2) told them that the accused has kept the money in the pocket of his coat. He has also corroborated the testimony of S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9) regarding washing of hands of the accused in the solution of Sodium Carbonate. Inside the house Ram Singh (P.W. 2) told them that the accused has kept the money in the pocket of his coat. He has also corroborated the testimony of S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9) regarding washing of hands of the accused in the solution of Sodium Carbonate. Ramswaroop Tiwari (P.W. 8) who is other panch witness, has also substantiated the evidence of S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9). 9. Shokhilal Tiwari (P.W. 6) and Dwarka Prasad (P.W. 13) are the constables who were with the trap party. They had deposed that Ram Singh (P.W. 2) came out form the accused's house and told them that he has paid the currency notes of Rs. 500/- to the accused and he has kept the same in the pocket of the coat. They entered into the hosue of the accused and caught hold of his hands. These two constables have fully corroborated the testimony of S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9) 10. Saheb Singh (P.W. 7) has not supported the prosecution case. He has been declared hostile. So is the case of Bhai Khan (P.W. 10). 11. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has stated in reply to question No. 11 that the amount of Rs. 839/- was found in the pocket of his coat. Out of this, the amount of Rs. 339/- was the government money. He does not know how the remaining amount of Rs. 500/- was found in his pocket. He has further stated that Ram Singh (P. W 2) sometime back had sent Tulsiram to bring some wood from the forest. He had seized his bullock cart and Ram Singh (P.W. 2) had paid a fine of Rs. 300/- and compounded that case. Ram Singh (P.W. 2) has falsely implicated him in this case. He did not receive any money from Ram Singh (P.W. 2). 12. After going through the entire evidence on record it is found that Ram Singh (P.W. 2) alone was present when he paid the amount of Rs. 500/- to the accused. As already noticed he has not supported the prosecution on two essential points. But it is established from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that Ram Singh (P.W. 2) had produced five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each before S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9), these were treated with phenolphthalein powder and kept in the pocket of Ram Singh (P.W. 2). As already noticed he has not supported the prosecution on two essential points. But it is established from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that Ram Singh (P.W. 2) had produced five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each before S.P. Shukla (P.W. 9), these were treated with phenolphthalein powder and kept in the pocket of Ram Singh (P.W. 2). He was sent to the house of the accused for payment of this money to him. Ram Singh (P.W. 2) entered into the house of the accused. His evidence is shaky on the point whether he paid this money in the hands of the accused or he kept it on the table. That however loses its significance when the money is found in the pocket of the coat of the accused. The currency notes of Rs. 500/- were recovered from the inner pocket of his coat which was hanging on the wall. The accused also admits the reocvery of the amount of Rs. 500/-from the pocket of his coat. This is not the case of the accused that any other person entered into the room and thrust the currecy notes in the pocket of his coat. The accused was wearing this coat when the money was given to him and thereafter he took out the coat and put it on the hanger. Therefore, the inference is irresistible that complainant Ram Singh (P.W. 2) gave these currency notes of Rs. 500/- to the accused who kept them in the inner pocket of his coat. The theory of planting of these currency notes in the pocket of the coat of the accused is ruled out. That is also not the defence. Either Ram Singh (P.W. 2) must have given these notes to the accused in his hands or he must have kept these notes on the table and the accused picked up those notes and kept the same in the inner pocket of his coat. Once the theory of the thrusting of the notes in the pocket of his coat is eliminated the inference is that the accused consciously obtained these currency notes and kept them in his pocket. It is true Ram Singh (P.W. 2) has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case on the two material points but that is not sufficient to throw out the entire case. It is true Ram Singh (P.W. 2) has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case on the two material points but that is not sufficient to throw out the entire case. Even the evidence of a hostile witness has to be scanned by the court in order to find out if a portion of it is true. A part of the testimony of Ram Singh (P.W. 2) can be accepted, if it receives sufficient corroboration from the other evidence and the circumstances. The recovery of the currency-notes of Rs. 500/- from the pocket of the accused is confirmed by the presence of phenolphthalien powder in the pocket of coat and in the hands of the accused which were washed and it was found that the liquid of the Sodim Carbonate became red. These are two circumstances which lend support to the prosecution case that the accused had received the money from Ram Singh (P.W. 2). The conclusion is that the money was accepted by the accused. 13. The relevant part of Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 provides that where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, it is proved that an accused person has "accepted" or "obtained" any gratification (other than legal remuneration) it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained that gratification as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said Section 161. 14. In State of Madras Vs. Vaidianatha Iyer AIR 1958 S. C. 61 the Supreme Dourt observed that where it is proved that gratification has been accepted, the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 shall at once arise. It is a presumption of law and it is obligatory on the Court to raise it in every case brought under Section 4. The legislature has chosen to use the words 'shall presume' and not may presume' the former a branch of presumption of law and latter of fact. Again in C.I. Emden Vs. State of U. P. AIR 1960 S. C. 548 the Supreme Court observed that such presumption arose when it was shown that the accused had received the stated amount and that the said amount was not legal remuneration. Again in C.I. Emden Vs. State of U. P. AIR 1960 S. C. 548 the Supreme Court observed that such presumption arose when it was shown that the accused had received the stated amount and that the said amount was not legal remuneration. The words 'gratification' was to be given its literal dictionary meaning of satisfaction of appetite or desire; it could not be construed to mean money paid by way of bribe. 15. In Dhanwantrai Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1964 S. C. 575 it was observed by a bench of four Judges of the Supreme Court that in orderto raise the presumption what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused person has received 'gratification' otherthan legal remuneration' and when it is shown that he has received a certain sum of money which was not a legal remuneration, then, the condition prescribed by this Section is satisfied and the presumption thereunder must be raised. In Jhingan Vs. State of U. P. AIR 1966 S. C. 1762 it was held that mere receipt of "money" is sufficient to raise the presumption. In State of Assam Vs. Krishna Rao AIR 1973 S. C. 28 it was held that if moneys were "recovered" form the pockets of the two accused persons which were not their legal remuneration then there can be no further question of showing that these moneys had been conscioulsy received by them. 16. In Reghubir Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1974 S. C. 1516 it was held that where an accused was caught red-handed with marked currency note, it is a case of res-ipsa loquitur. The very thing speaks for itself in the circumstances. 17. Now it would be proper to refer to the two decisions of the Supreme Court cited on behalf of the appellant in support of the plea that mere 'recovery' of money was not enough to entitle the drawing of the presumption under Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These are Sitaram Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1975 S.C. 1432 and Surajmal Vs. State AIR 1979 S.C. 1408 . In the latter case it was said that mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it was said was not sufficient when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money. State AIR 1979 S.C. 1408 . In the latter case it was said that mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it was said was not sufficient when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money. There is some dichotomy when the observation made in these two cases are compared with what was said in State of Assam Vs. Krishna Rao AIR 1973 S.C. 28 (Supra) which relied upon the larger bench decision of the Supreme Court in support if its veiw. Not only that, these two decisions were considered by the Supreme Court soon after in Hazarilal Vs. State AIR 1980 S. C. 873. For the first case (Sitaram) it was observed that the question whether the rest of the evidence was sufficient to establish that the accused had obtained the money from the complainant was not considered. The Court did not consider the question whether recovery of the money along with other circumstances could establish that the accused had obtained gratification from any person. About Surajmal it was said that there can be no quarrel with the proposition laid down therein but where the recovery of money coupled with other circumstances leads to the conclusion that the accused received gratification from some person the Court would certainly be entitled to draw the presumption. 18. In Hazarilal Vs. State AIR 1980 S. C. 873 (Supra) it was further held that it is not necessary that passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. That was also a case where the complainant turned volte face and therefore direct evidence of the star witness was not available. The money was recovered form the pocket of the accused. The Supreme Court observed: Once we arrive at the finding that the accused had obtained the money from P.W. 3 (the complainant who had turned hostile), the presumption is immediately attracted. It has also been held in this case that if the evidence of the police officer who laid the trap is found reliable, then corroboration is not necessary. The Supreme Court observed: Once we arrive at the finding that the accused had obtained the money from P.W. 3 (the complainant who had turned hostile), the presumption is immediately attracted. It has also been held in this case that if the evidence of the police officer who laid the trap is found reliable, then corroboration is not necessary. It has been further clarified that the statements by the witnesses and the accused during the course of the investigation cannot be used as substantive evidence, except the statement which is permitted to be proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Conclusions of fact must be drawn on the facts of each case and not on the facts of other cases. 19. In State of U. P. Vs. G. K. Ghose AIR 1984 S. C. 1453 it has been held that in case of an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending upon the circumstances of the case, the Court may feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found to be not independent. When besides such evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case. 20. In M.O. Shamshuddin Vs. State of Karala AIR 1995 SCW 2717 it has been reiterated that corroborating evidence can be even by way of circumstantial evidence. C. K. Damodaran Nair Vs. Government of India 1997 Cri. L. J. 739 is the latest decision on the point. The question that was posed in this case was 'whether such demand is essential ingredient of the offence in question'. It was answered;" It cannot be said as an abstract proposition of law, that without a prior demand there cannot be "acceptance" within the meaning of Section 1611. P. C. 'Accept' means to take or receive with a consenting mind. Such a consent canbe established not only by leading evidence of prior a greement but also from the circumstances surrounding the transaction itself withoutproof of such prior agreement. 21. P. C. 'Accept' means to take or receive with a consenting mind. Such a consent canbe established not only by leading evidence of prior a greement but also from the circumstances surrounding the transaction itself withoutproof of such prior agreement. 21. Now recaptulating the facts of the present case it been found as discussed above that there is not substantive evicence ragarding the prior demand by the accused as Ram Singh (P.W. 2) has not supported that prosecution case on that point. But from what transpired between Ram Singh (P.W. 2) and the accused when the money was passed on to him it is obvious that the accused accepted it with a consenting mind. He kept the currency notes in the inner pocket of his coat. That proves his guilty animus. Then his hands were washed and the solution of the Sodium Carbonate turned pink. These two pieces of circumstantial evidence fully corroborate the testimony of Ram Singh (P.W. 2) regarding acceptance of the money by the accused. The recovery of money from the inner pocket of his coat is not disputed as stated by him in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the accused that the money was thrust in the pocket of his coat. None else was present there who could do so. The statement of the accused that the money is in the pocket of his coat is admissible under Section 27 Evidence Act as in consequence of that statement the money was immediately recovered from the pocket of his coat. That furnishes the reassuring guarantee that the money was kept by the accused in that pocket. That is also admissible as conduct of the accused under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it is not a case of 'mere recovery' as argued on behalf of the appellant but there is enough circmstantial evidence to prove the acceptance of the gratification by the accused attracting the presumption under Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 22. The conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is altered to Section 161 Indian Penal Code and the sentence of the rigourous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed