JUDGMENT S.K. Pande, J. 1. Special Judge, Sagar in Special Case No. 1/88 recording conviction of appellant under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years. Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2), Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Admittedly, at the relevant date-time appellant was a Head Constable posted at Police Station, Moti Nagar (Sagar). Murlidhar (P.W. 2) submitted application (Exhibit P-2) to the effect that to settle the case arising out of the report of one Chaina Kotwar, appellant was demanding a bribe of Rs. 300/-. On the basis of this report Hari Prasad Choudhary (P.W. 14), Inspector Lokayukta constituted a trap party consisting of Yeshwant Kumar Saxena (P.W.3), Kedar Prasad Rawat (P.W.8). In presence of these witnesses, three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- were treated with phenolphthalein. Preparing preliminary Panchanama (Exhibit P-4) the currency notes were given to Murlidhar (P.W.2) for onward delivery to the appellant. Thereafter the trap party proceeded further, however, appellant was not found present at the Police Station, Moti Nagar. Being informed, appellant might be attending duty of some festival, the trap party had been to the place concerned. At that place also appellant was not found present. Finally, while the trap party was proceeding further with search of the appellant, he was found moving near the Chameli Chowk. Murlidhar (P.W.2) and the appellant had been to a hotel. As soon as Murlidhar (P.W.2) has come out from the hotel, police constables of the trap party Dwarka Prasad (P.W.5), Bhagole Prasad (P.W.6) in presence of Yashwant Kumar Saxena and Kedar Prasad Rawat apprehended the appellant. The currency notes of the denomination described in preliminary Panchnama (Exhibit P-4) were recovered from him. The hand wash of the appellant turned pink. As such Panchanama (Exhibit P-6) was prepared. Obtaining sanction for prosecution, the appellant was charge sheeted under section 161, Indian Penal Code, section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. Appellant abjured the guilt and contended that he was not concerned with the investigation of Crime No. 265/86 under section 379, Indian Penal Code arising out of report (Exhibit P-19) of Chain Singh nor he ever demanded any amount from Murlidhar (P.W.2). Appellant abjured the guilt and contended that he was not concerned with the investigation of Crime No. 265/86 under section 379, Indian Penal Code arising out of report (Exhibit P-19) of Chain Singh nor he ever demanded any amount from Murlidhar (P.W.2). The court below accepted the contention that the appellant was not at all concerned with the investigation of Crime No. 265/86 under section 379, Indian Penal Code nor he demanded the amount towards the bribe. As such, vide impugned judgment, he was acquitted of the charge under section 161 Indian Penal Code. However, the court below held that the appellant accepted the amount aforesaid towards the bribe said to have been settled by Chandra Shekhar Shukla, Sub-Inspector (P.W.1l) to settle the case against Murlidhar (P.W.2). As such recording conviction under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for the period aforesaid. 3. P.W.14 Hari Prasad Choudhary, Inspector, Lokayukta has stated that on 18-8-1986, Murlidhar (P.W.2) submitted an application (Exhibit P-2) to the effect that in relation to theft of building materials of Chaina Kotwar, he was called for interrogation. To settle the case against him, appellant has demanded a sum of Rs. 300/-. He was prepared to give him Rs. 200/-, however the appellant was insisting for payment of Rs. 300/-. P.W.14 Hari Prasad Choudhary has stated that on this application, the trap party consisting of Yashwant Kumar Saxena (P.W.3) and Kedar Prasad Rawat (P.W.8) was constituted. P.W.14 Hari Prasad Choudhary, P.W.3 Yashwant Kumar Saxena, P.W.8 Kedar Prasad Rawat have stated that three currency notes of the denomination Rs. 100/- were treated with phenolphthalein. As per instructions detailed in preliminary Panchanama (Exhibit P-4), these currency notes were given to Murlidhar (P.W.2) for onward delivery to the appellant. These witnesses have stated that taking Murlidhar (P.W.2), they had been to the Police Station Moti Nagar. The appellant was not found present at the Police Station. As per information, he was likely to be present at some place on festival duty. Visiting the place aforesaid, the trap party did not find the appellant present on duty. While the trap party was moving further, the appellant was found at Chameli Chowk. Seeing the appellant, Murlidhar (P.W.2) approached to him and both of them entered into a hotel. As per information, he was likely to be present at some place on festival duty. Visiting the place aforesaid, the trap party did not find the appellant present on duty. While the trap party was moving further, the appellant was found at Chameli Chowk. Seeing the appellant, Murlidhar (P.W.2) approached to him and both of them entered into a hotel. As soon as Murlidhar (P.W.2) has come out, the police constables of the trap party Dwarka Prasad (P.W.5) and Bhagole Prasad (P.W.6) along with other members entered into the hotel and apprehended the appellant. These witnesses have stated that currency notes of the denomination described in preliminary Panchanama Exhibit P-4 were recovered from the appellant vide Panchanama Exhibit P-6. P.W.5 Dwarka Prasad, P.W.6 Bhagole Prasad, police constables working under the Incharge, trap party Hari Prasad Choudhary (P.W.14) have stated that they entered into the hotel where the appellant was found taking tea. He was immediately apprehended and in presence of Yashwant Kumar Saxena (P.W.3), Kedar Prasad Rawat (P.W.8), Inspector Hari Prasad Choudhary (P.W.14) recovered the currency notes from the possession of appellant. 4. P.W.2 Murlidhar has stated that in relation to investigation of crime said to have been registered on the report (Exhibit P-9) of Chain Singh, he was called by the Sub-Inspector Shukla. Sub Inspector Shukla demanded a bribe of Rs. 300/- to settle the case against him. He agreed to give Rs. 200/- to the Sub-Inspector Shukla, however, he was insisting for payment of Rs. 300/-. As such, being annoyed of the attitude of Sub-Inspector Shukla, he presented the application Exhibit P-2. Three currency notes of the denomination Rs. 100/- were treated with some powder and delivered to him for onward payment to Sub-Inspector Shukla. Members of the trap party associated with him. They had been to the Police Station, Moti Nagar, however, Sub-Inspector Shukla was not present. Thereafter, while returning, appellant Head Constable of the same Police Station was found near Chameli Chowk. P.W.2 Murlidhar has stated that with appellant he had been to the hotel where he asked the appellant to take the amount to be paid to Sub-Inspector Shukla, however, the appellant declined to do so, stating inter alia that he has nothing to do with the dealing between him and Sub-Inspector Shukla. P.W.2 Murlidhar has stated that he himself has insisted that the appellant should take the amount to be paid to Sub-Inspector Shukla. P.W.2 Murlidhar has stated that he himself has insisted that the appellant should take the amount to be paid to Sub-Inspector Shukla. Saying so, he kept the currency notes in the hands of appellant. The appellant immediately kept those currency notes on the table. Thereafter, the members of the trap party arrived and collected the currency notes aforesaid. The hand wash of the appellant turned pink. P.W. -11 Chandra Shekhar Shukla, Sub-Inspector has stated that on 5-8-1986, report Exhibit P-19 of Chain Singh was received from the office of Superintendent of Police. For preliminary enquiry, it was given to the appellant. Report Exhibit P-20 in relation to the alleged allegations was submitted by the appellant on 13-8-1986. Thereafter, on 15-8-1986, Crime No. 265/86 under section 379, Indian Penal Code was registered. The crime aforesaid was investigated by him and finally criminal case No. 42/87 arising out of Crime No." 265/86 against Prakash, s/o Nathu was filed in the Court of MFC, Sagar. On 15-8-1986 only appellant has been with him at the time of investigation of Crime No. 265/86. This statement of P.W. 11 Chandra Shekhar Shukla makes it clear that the appellant submitted report Exhibit P-20 on 13-8-1986 itself. Thereafter, he was not concerned with the investigation of Crime No. 265/86. The statement of P.W.2 Murlidhar is to the effect that Sub-Inspector Shukla investigating the offence arising out of the report Exhibit P-19 infact demanded a bribe of Rs. 300/-. Since Sub-Inspector Shukla was not traceable on 18-8-1986, appellant being found near the Chameli Chowk was requested to take the amount for payment to Sub-Inspector Shukla. P.W.2 Murlidhar clearly stated that appellant declined to do so by saying that he is not concerned at all with alleged arrangement between Sub-Inspector Shukla and Murlidhar. 5. P.W.3 Yashwant Kumar Saxena, P.W.8 Kedar Prasad Rawat, P.W.5 Dwarka Prasad, P.W.6 Bhagole Prasad and P.W.14 Hari Prasad Choudhary in their cross-examination have admitted that they have not seen Murlidhar (P.W.2) actually delivering the currency notes to the appellant. Therefore, statement of P.W.2 Murlidhar alone is on the point that the currency notes of the denomination were offered to the appellant for payment to Sub-Inspector Shukla. P.W.2 Murlidhar has stated that the appellant declined to do so, however, he kept the currency notes in his hands. The appellant immediately kept those currency notes on the table. Therefore, statement of P.W.2 Murlidhar alone is on the point that the currency notes of the denomination were offered to the appellant for payment to Sub-Inspector Shukla. P.W.2 Murlidhar has stated that the appellant declined to do so, however, he kept the currency notes in his hands. The appellant immediately kept those currency notes on the table. Since the currency notes were kept in the hands of appellant, it was quite natural that the hand wash of the appellant turned pink. In Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 337 it has been held that the result of the phenolphthalein test should be viewed in the context only that the appellant also come into contact with the currency notes when these were kept in his hands by P.W.2 Murlidhar and he pushed it away on the table. The currency notes aforesaid were said to have been recovered from the appellant under the circumstances stated and explained by P.W.2 Murlidhar. It is rightly contended that in relation to the alleged recovery of currency notes vide Exhibit P-6, no presumption under section 4 could be drawn against the appellant. The word presumption in its largest and most comprehensive signification may be defined as in the sense of actual certainty of the truth or falsehood of a fact or proposition, an inference affirmative or negative to that truth or false-hood which is drawn by a process of probable reasoning from something which is taken for granted. It is however rarely employed in jurisprudence in this extended sense. Like presumptive evidence, it has there obtained a restricted legal signification, and is used to designate an inference affirmative or dis-affirmative, of the existence of some fact. In the circumstances, as has been held in Banshi Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1235 the alleged recovery of currency notes by itself will not be sufficient to raise presumption against appellant particularly where as per the statement of P.W.2 Murlidhar, the appellant never demanded any amount to settle the case against him. 6. From statement of P.W.I 1 Chandra Shekhar Shukla, it has become clear that the appellant, Head Constable was not entrusted with the investigation of Crime No. 265/86 under section 379, Indian Penal Code arising out of report Exhibit P-15. The preliminary report Exhibit P-20 was already submitted by the appellant on 13-8-1986. 6. From statement of P.W.I 1 Chandra Shekhar Shukla, it has become clear that the appellant, Head Constable was not entrusted with the investigation of Crime No. 265/86 under section 379, Indian Penal Code arising out of report Exhibit P-15. The preliminary report Exhibit P-20 was already submitted by the appellant on 13-8-1986. P.W.2 Murliadhar has stated that during the investigation of Crime No. 265/86, he was called by the police at Police Station, Mod Nagar, where Sub-Inspector Shukla demanded Rs. 300/- to settle the dispute in relation to alleged theft of building material of Chain Singh. Since the raid party did not find Sub-Inspector anywhere, finally, while moving further, appellant the Head Constable of the Police Station was found near Chameli Chowk. This is the statement of P.W.-2 Murlidhar that in the hotel he asked the appellant to take the money for payment to the Sub-Inspector Shukla. The appellant did not agree nor accepted the currency notes to do so. The currency notes were kept in his hands by P.W.-2 Murlidhar. Similar circumstances in Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje and Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 287 it has been held : As regards accused No. 2 merely because he was entrusted with some money to be passed on to accused No. 1 it could not be held that he was guilty of any one of these offences unless it is established that he was a party to the arrangement and the arrangement arrived at was that the money would be handed over to accused No. 2 to be given over to accused No. 1. Apparently accused No. 2 was not expected to help the complainant. The assurance to the complainant to settle the matter, according to the prosecution was given by accused No. 1 and according to the prosecution own case and the evidence of complainant this arrangement was finally settled at the house of accused No. 1. Admittedly accused No. 2 was not there nor it is alleged that he had any knowledge about this settlement. Under these circumstances it could not be held that accused No. 2 accepted this amount for any purpose. Admittedly accused No. 2 was not there nor it is alleged that he had any knowledge about this settlement. Under these circumstances it could not be held that accused No. 2 accepted this amount for any purpose. At best as the complainant told him to pass this money on to accused No. 1 he accepted it but on that basis it could not be held that he was sharing the intention with accused No. 1 or was acting on his behalf. Under section 5(1)(d) a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty :- if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. As per the statement of P.W.-2 Murlidhar, the appellant never demanded the money from him to settle the case arising out of report exhibit P-19. It is Sub-Inspector Shukla who had insisted him to pay Rs. 300/-. There was no arrangement between Sub-Inspector Shukla and the appellant that the amount being given to the appellant shall be paid by him to the Sub-Inspector Shukla. Appellant was not a party to the arrangement between P.W.-2 Murlidhar and Sub-Inspector Shukla. In the circumstances, the conclusions of court below could not be sustained and the conviction and sentence against the appellant deserved to be set aside. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Setting aside the conviction-sentence passed by court below vide impugned judgment in Special Case No. 1/88, appellant stands acquitted of the charge under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. His bail bonds stand cancelled.