JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. - Appellant Surinder Dev, hereinafter referred to as the accused, is in this appeal against his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act for short) by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, by this impugned judgment dated 30th of December, 1998. Prosecution Case: 2. The accused was posted as Patwari at Gahar at the relevant time. Prakash Chand son of Khajana Ram, complainant, wanted a copy of Jamabandi for use in some consolidation proceedings. He approached the accused for the supply of the copy. The accused put him off on one pretext or the other. Accused later told Parkash Chand that he could get the necessary copy of the jamabandi if he paid Rs. 500/- to him as a bribe. The amount of illegal gratification was negotiated by the complainant with the accused. It was agreed that complainant Parkash Chand would pay Rs. 200/- to the accused to get the copy of the required jamabandi. It was settled between the complainant and the accused that the complainant would come with the settled money on 30th July, 1992 at Patwarkhana to get the copy. 3. Complainant on the agreed date, instead of going to Patwarkhana, approached Duni Chand (PW-11) at Mandi. He told him that the Patwari has demanded Rs. 500/- to supply copy of the jamabandi to him, but he settled the deal for Rs. 200/. Duni Chand is from the village of the complainant Parkash Chand. Both of them went to the Court Complex and met Roshan Lal, Clerk of Advocate Mr. D.D. - Verma. Three of them then went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Zone, Mandi and narrated to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anant Ram (PW-13) about the demand of illegal gratification made by the accused. On the statement made by complainant Parkash Chand, a formal FIR (Ex.PW-10/A) was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Complainant gave two currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who in turn treated the two currency notes with phenolphanein powder. A demonstration was given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the complainant and his two companion by mixing the phenolphanein powder in Sodium Carbonate solution and on such mixing, the solution turned purple in colour. 100/- denomination to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who in turn treated the two currency notes with phenolphanein powder. A demonstration was given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the complainant and his two companion by mixing the phenolphanein powder in Sodium Carbonate solution and on such mixing, the solution turned purple in colour. Thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Investigating Officer, constituted a raiding party including therein Inspectors Prem Chand and Hira Lal, Head Constable Gian Chand, LHC Shankar Dass, Parkash Chand and Duni Chand, friends of the complainant. The Investigating Officer directed Parkash Chand to go to Patwari and hand over the treated currency notes on demand being made by the accused in consideration for the supply of the copy. Duni Chand was instructed to follow Parkash Chand and to stay behind and give prearranged signal as soon as the currency notes were passed to the accused by Parkash Chand. All of them proceeded to Patwarkhana. Ghevar Ram, Lambardar met them near Patwarkhana. He too was joined in the raiding party. Complainant went to Patwarkhana and passed on the two treated currency notes to the accused as illegal gratification for the supply of copy of the Jamabandi. Duni Chand gave a pre-arranged signal on which the raiding party went inside the Patwarkhana. The Investigating Officer disclosed his identity and asked the accused to hand over the two currency notes which he had taken as a bribe from the complainant. The accused after initial resistance took out the two currency notes from his shirt pocket and handed them over to the Investigating Officer. On comparison the number of the currency notes were found to be same as recorded by the Investigating Officer in the First Information Report. The two currency notes were taken into possession by Memo Ex. PW-7/B. Thereafter hand wash of the accused was taken in a Thali which was colourless. In another Thali Sodium Carbonate powder in small quantity was mixed in water which too remained colourless. When hand wash was mixed in carbonated water, the color of the water turned purple. The wash of the pocket of the shirt was separately taken in the water and mixed in the carbonated water which again turned pink. Spot map was prepared by the-Investigating Officer. Copy of Jamabandi which was given to Parkash Chand by the accused was also taken into possession. The wash of the pocket of the shirt was separately taken in the water and mixed in the carbonated water which again turned pink. Spot map was prepared by the-Investigating Officer. Copy of Jamabandi which was given to Parkash Chand by the accused was also taken into possession. It is in this background that accused was prosecuted for the offences. 4. Learned Special Judge on the appreciation of the evidence on record, including defence evidence, concluded that accused demanded and accepted Rs. 200/- from Parkash Chand as bribe for the supply of copy of Jamabandi and, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. Learned Special Judge sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused was further directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month on each count in the event of the non-payment of fine. 5. I have heard Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Counsel for the accused Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. I was also taken through the record. 6. The main thrust of the arguments of Mr. Vasudeva is that the evidence produced by the prosecution is unworthy of reliance, does not inspire confidence and is unacceptable. He contends that neither the demand of illegal gratification nor its acceptance is proved by any acceptable evidence. Section 13(1) of the Act reads: "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct. He contends that neither the demand of illegal gratification nor its acceptance is proved by any acceptable evidence. Section 13(1) of the Act reads: "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct. - (a) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7; or (b) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or (c) If he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) If he, - (i) By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) While holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (e) If ho or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, or pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "known sources of Income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions* of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "known sources of Income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions* of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine." 7. It is noticed that a public servant commits a misconduct under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act reads: "7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. - Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanations - (a) "Expecting to be a public servant." If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. (b) Gratification". - The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. (b) Gratification". - The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. (c) "Legal remmeration" - The word legal remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept. (d) "A motive on reward for doing," - A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position lu do, or has not done, comes within this expression. (e) Where a public servant includes a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant ha« committed an offence under this Section." 8. A bare perusal of Sectiou7 shows that if a public servant accepts any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or for forbearing or abstain from doing any official act in spite of his official functions then he is liable to be punished with imprisonment which is not be to be less than six months but which may extend to five years and also to pay fine.. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that accused made a demand of Rs. 200/-, as illegal gratification, for the supply of a copy of Jamabandi and accepted two treated currency-notes of Rs. 100/-denomination, as illegal gratification, by putting those two currency notes in his shirt pocket and thereafter supplied the copy of the Jamabandi to the accused. The defence of the accused is that he has falsely been implicated by the complainant and his father for the reasons that during consolidation operation 7 Bighas of land was separated and given to other family members of the father of the complainant by the Consolidation Department and he was instrumental in giving demarcation on the spot for which Parkash Chand and his father held grudge against him. It is the defence of the accused from the very beginning that he prepared the Jamabnandi in his Patwarkhana and when he was entering the same in the receipt book, complainant Parkash Chand forcibly put two currency notes in his shirt pocket which he took out and threw on the ground. Immediately police party entered his Patwarkhana and lifted the money lying on the floor, in the meanwhile, Parkash Chand took up the Jamabandi. His hand wash was obtained forcibly. He denies having made any demand for the supply of copy of the Jamabandi. The defence version is supported by Smt. Sumna Devi (DW-1). Sumna Devi is teal sister of the wife of the accused. It is her evidence that on the fateful day she was present in Patwarkhana. Her sister was in adjoining kitchen with the children. Accused came from the shop after buying some household goods. Parkash Chand was with the accused. Accused started writing something when complainant Parkash Chand forcibly put some money in the shirt pocket of the accused. Accused threw the money on the floor. Immediately the police came and took up the money. On demand she gave water to the police for the hand-wash of the accused. It is her evidence that at the relevant time windows we covered with jute bags. 10. The contention of Shri Vasudeva Is that the shadow witness is an interested witness in as much as he was the person who accompanied the complainant to the «if lice of the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Zone. He was interested in the success of the case. Placed as he was, he could not have seen the passing of the two treated currency notes by complainant to the accused. In any event argues Shri Vasudeva there is no evidence to show that accused made any demand or accepted any money from the complainant. 11. A perusal of Section 13(1)(a) shows that prosecution is obliged to prove that accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or agreed to obtain any gratification ms motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to prove that accused accepted or obtained Rs.2007- from the complainant for supply of the copy of the Jamabandi. There is no evidence to this effect. 12. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to prove that accused accepted or obtained Rs.2007- from the complainant for supply of the copy of the Jamabandi. There is no evidence to this effect. 12. It is the evidence of the complainant Parkash Chand that he went inside the Patwarkhana and requested the accused for supply of the copy of the Jamabandi. Accused demanded money and he paid him the treated currency notes. It is his evidence that Duni Chand (PW-11) who followed him stood near the window outside the Patwarkhana. It is his further evidence that accused after taking the currency notes from him put them in a shirt pocket. In the meanwhile, Duni Chand gave pre-arranged signal to the police. The police along with Ghevar Ram entered the Patwarkhana and at the asking of the Investigating Officer accused took out money from the shirt pocket and gave it to the Investigating Officer. It is the evidence of the complainant that he was sitting, facing accused, on a Charpai and Duni Chand was visible to him from the window: ..In the next breath he states that Duni Chand was standing outside the door. Then again, in further cross-examination, he states that Duni Chand was not standing at the door. It is admitted position that wire gauge shutters were fixed on the windows. If that be so, it was not possible for the shadow witness Duni Chand to see what transpired inside the Patwarkhana. It is the evidence of Duni Chand that he had positioned himself, near the window of the Patwarkhana. The police was at a distance of 20 meters from him near kutcha road and he was standing: 3 to 4 steps away from the window and was not standing near the door. It is his evidence that windows were fixed with Jali (wire gauge shutters). He was unable to say if the room was lit with electrical light or was there day light in the room of Patwarkhana. He does not say a word about accused having demanded any money from complainant Parkash Chand. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anant Ram, the Investigating Officer, appearing as PW-13 is categorical that Duni Chand was standing at, a distance of 10 to 12 meters from the Patwarkhana. In his own words, "Duni Chand was standing at a said stance of 10-12 meters from the Patwarkhana". Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anant Ram, the Investigating Officer, appearing as PW-13 is categorical that Duni Chand was standing at, a distance of 10 to 12 meters from the Patwarkhana. In his own words, "Duni Chand was standing at a said stance of 10-12 meters from the Patwarkhana". If that be so, then Duni Chand, the shadow witness, could not have heard 01 seen anything or what transpired inside the Patwarkhana from a distance of 10 to 20 meters more so when window was covered with wire gauge shutter. 13. Gian Chand, H.C., appearing as PW-12, states that Duni Chand was standing 2 to 3 feet away from Patwarkhana from where he gave signal to the raiding party. Even Parkash Chand complainant (PW-10) does not say a word about any demand of Rs. 200/- made by the accused or its acceptance. He merely states, "he demanded money. I paid him. Duni Chand was following me at that time and he was standing near the window outside the Patwarkhana Thus, there is no acceptable evidence on record except a half-headed statement made by the complainant regarding the demand of any bribe by the accused 14. It is now well settled that prosecution is obliged to prove, in order to secure conviction, that accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification. The Apex Court in C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt. of India, 1997(9) SCC 477 interpreting the expression "obtain" held that prosecution has to prove that the accused "obtained" the valuable things or pecuniary advantage without the aid. of the statutory presumption. "Obtain" means to secure or gain (something) as the result of request or effort. Their Lordships observed:- "In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that context a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence under Section 5(1 )(d) of the Act unlike an offence under Section 161 IPC, which, as noticed above, can be, established by proof of either "acceptance" or "obtainment". (Emphasis given) 15. In Babu Lal Bajpai v. State of UP., AIR 1994 SC 1538 accused was prosecuted for the offence under Section 5(2) read with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (old) read with Section 161 IPC for allegedly having accepted an amount of Rs. 75/- as a bribe for sanctioning the bills of the complainant-contractor. 75/- as a bribe for sanctioning the bills of the complainant-contractor. A trap in that case was laid. The accused was caught in the act of accounting Rs. 75/- which were paid by the complainant as bribe to him. At the trial, no independent witness, except the Magistrate who had accompanied raiding party, was examined. The trial Court taking into consideration version of the accused that complainant tried to thrust money into his pocket acquitted the accused. The High Court in appeal reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused. The matter was carried to the Apex Court. In this background their Lordships held: "The case of the accused is that the complainant had tried to thrust the money in his pocket and he had resisted the said attempt, and thrown down the money on the floor. This version of the accused has been supported by the prosecution witness Raghubir Singh who si the adjacent shopkeeper and in whose shop the testing of ultra violet rays on the currency notes was made. Since ho was aware of what was going to happen he had naturally moved near the shop of the trap. According to this witness he was standing outside the said shop and had heard the conversation inside the shop where the trap was laid. There is no mason why this witness who is a stranger both to the prosecution as well as to the accused would support the version of the accused, as stated above, if that was not the true version. The trial Court has also relied upon, and according us rightly, this version of the said prosecution witness. These are two of the most important reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused. The High Court has ignored these reasons and has tried to substitute its own finding which unfortunately is based on surmises. We are, therefore, more than satisfied that this was not a case where any interference with the finding of the trial Court was called for. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the appellant-accused should be acquitted of both the charges." 16. The question is whether accused raised demanded and accepted the two currency notes from the complainant as bribe. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the appellant-accused should be acquitted of both the charges." 16. The question is whether accused raised demanded and accepted the two currency notes from the complainant as bribe. Them is not a single word in evidence except, as already noticed, halfhearted statement of the complainant who merely states that he paid Rs. 200/- to the accused. However, he is not supported by the shadow witness Duni Chand. He does not say a word about having heard any demand being made by the accused or accused having accepted the money. 17. In Meena (Smt.) w/o Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra, 2000(5) SCC 21, the currency notes in question were not recovered from the person of the accused, but when the trap party arrived the currency notes were found on the pad on the table and were taken into possession from that place. Question arose whether the accused accepted it and placed it on the table or the currency notes fell on the pad on the table in the process of the appellant refusing to receive it by pushing away the hands of the complainant when the currency notes were attempted to be trusted into the hands of the accused. PW-2, one of the panch witness, who accompanied PW-1 as a shadow witness, did not support the prosecution case. The .other panch witness who gave the signal was not examined at the trial. In this context it was observed by their Lordships: "Law has always favoured the presence and importance of a shadow witness in the trap party, not only to facilitate such witness to see but also overhear what happens and how it happens also." 18. Their Lordships further observed in para-11 of the judgment :-"Mere recovery of the currency note of Rs. 20 denomination, and that too lying on the pad on the table, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the acceptance of the bribe, in the peculiar circumstances of this case which lend also credence to the case of the appellant that it fell on the table in the process of the appellant pushing it away with her hands when attempted to be thrust into her hands by PW-1. The results of phenolphthalein test, viewed in the context that the appellant could have also come into contact with the currency note when she pushed it away with her hands cannot by itself be considered in be of any relevance to prove that the appellant really accepted the bribe amount." (Emphasis given) 19. Thus, in the absence of any evidence as to what transpired between the complainant and the accused inside the Patwarkhana it is difficult to conclude that bribe of Rs. 200/- was demanded and accepted by the accused. 20. In view of the absence of credible evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe by the accused it is difficult to up-held the conviction of the accused. 21. This apart, the evidence led by the prosecution is discrepant and unreliable and discussed earlier. The prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence in the absence of any corroboration and for the reasons that no independent witness was associated in the raiding party. The two witnesses associated with the raiding party are Duni Chand (PW-11) and Ghevar Ram (PW-7). Duni Chand cannot be said to be independent witness. He took active part in laying trap and took the complainant to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption at Mandi. He, therefore, is an interested witness. So far Ghevar Ram is concerned, he does not support prosecution. It is his evidence that he accompanied the raiding party to Patwarkhana. He saw accused sitting in the Patwarkhana. Parkash Chand was also sitting there and no-one else was in Patwarkhana, except the members of the family of the accused and he saw the currency notes of Rs. 200/- only in the hands of the Investigating Officer/This witness was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, but without any tangible result. He denied the suggestion that it was on the signal of Duni Chand that raiding party entered Patwarkhana. He denied the suggestion that the accused handed over Rs. 200/- currency notes to the Investigating Officer from his shirt pocket. The importance of associating independent witness in a trap cannot be over emphasised. 22. He denied the suggestion that it was on the signal of Duni Chand that raiding party entered Patwarkhana. He denied the suggestion that the accused handed over Rs. 200/- currency notes to the Investigating Officer from his shirt pocket. The importance of associating independent witness in a trap cannot be over emphasised. 22. Asfaras back in 1973 the Apex Court in Ram Parkash Arrora v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 held that evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and the Court may look after independent corroboration before convicting the accused persons :- 23. In the present case, as already noticed, Duni Chand prevaricated himself. The preponderance of his evidence on record shows that he could not have heard or seen what transpired inside the Patwarkhana. Therefore, this witness cannot be implicitly relied upon. 24. In Ram Parkash Arora their Lordships observed: "It must be remembered that both Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh P.Ws. were interested and partisan witnesses. They were concerned in the success of the trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way- as that of any other interested witness." 25. In the present case, as noticed earlier, there is no other evidence from which any corroboration could be {fathered for the version given by the complainant. 26. In Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91 the Supreme Court once again emphasised that it is n duty of the officer in anti-corruption department to secure independent and respectable witnesses in a trap case. In para-8 of the judgment their Lordships observed:- "The prosecution case also suffers from another serious infirmity and it is that it rests entirely on the evidence of witnesses who are either interested witnesses or police witnesses. Jagdish Raj was clearly an interested witness because he was concerned in laying the trap for the appellant. Arjun Das was also an interest witness as he was a relative of Jagdish Raj." Their Lordships further observed:- "We must take this opportunity of impression on the officers functioning in the anti-corruption department to insist on observing this safeguard das zealously and scrupulously as possible for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and rescuable 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 not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe." 27. In Ram Dubar Yadeo v. State of U.P., 2000 Cri.L.J. 899 accused was alleged to have demanded Rs. 50/- for reducing reading of the consumption of the electricity. A trap was laid. No independent witness was joined. None of the witness joining the trap could testify about hearing of conversation between accused and complainant regarding the demand of bribe. In this context it was held that conviction in the absence of independent evidence as to the conversation cannot be upheld. 28. A Single Judge of this Court in Ved Parkash v. State of H.P., 1998(1) Shim.L.C. 392 held that non-association of independent witness with the trap is a serious infirmity and conviction cannot be raised entirely on the evidence of interested witnesses or police witnesses. 29. To conclude there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show that accused raised any demand for illegal gratification or currency notes of Rs. 200/- treated with phenolphthalein by the Investigating Officer were accepted by the accused. The version of the accused that the currency notes were thrusted in his pocket by the accused and he took those two notes from his pocket, threw them on the ground cannot be entirely ruled out Particularly, in View of the evidence of DW-1 Sumna Devi. 30. No other point is urged before me. 31. The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the accused is set aside. The accused stands acquitted. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine, if realised, shall be refunded back to the accused.