Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment and order dated 5.10.2002 passed by Special Judge, Patiala, whereby he was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further RI for three months. 2. Facts giving rise to the case are that the appellant was posted as a Canal Patwari. Complainant Chander Bhan PW-4 used to share turn of canal water with Singh Ram and Teja Ram. He filed an application before the Ziledar for fixing of his turn of canal water. The applications moved by him were marked to the appellant, who demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from him for making a report in favour of the complainant. The amount was finally settled at Rs. 700/-. The complainant talked to his cousin Sat Pal PW-5 regarding the demand of bribe made by the accused. 3. On 14.9.2000, complainant Chander Bhan along with his cousin Sat Pal went to the office of DSP (Vigilance), where he apprised the authorities regarding the demand of bribe made by the appellant. DSP Gurmukh Singh PW-7 recorded statement Ex. PE made by Chander Bhan, on the basis of which formal FIR No. 42 dated 14.9.2000 was registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act). Complainant produced Rs. 700/- of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each before the DSP, who applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes. In the meantime, Satinder Singh Nanda and Gursharan Kaur Walia, who were posted as Research Officer and Assistant Director, respectively in Language Department, Patiala, came there. They were associated by DSP Gurmukh Singh in the proceedings. A demonstration was given regarding the effect of the phenolphthalein powder. The numbers of the currency notes were noted on a memo. Sat Pal PW-5 was instructed to act as a shadow witness for giving signal to the raiding party after the amount was accepted by the accused on demand. 4. Thereafter, the raiding party went to the house of the accused. Complainant Chander Bhan and his cousin Sat Pal entered the house of the accused, whereas the remaining members of the raiding party stayed behind. 4. Thereafter, the raiding party went to the house of the accused. Complainant Chander Bhan and his cousin Sat Pal entered the house of the accused, whereas the remaining members of the raiding party stayed behind. The accused asked the complainant, if he had brought the amount. Upon this, the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes of Rs. 700/- to the accused. On receipt of a signal from Sat Pal, the shadow witness, DSP Gurmukh Singh along with other members of the party arrived at the scene. The tainted money was recovered from underneath the leg of the accused. The number of the currency notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the memo Ex. PF. These currency notes were taken into possession. The shirt of the accused was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate prepared in a glass of water and the colour turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and sealed and taken into possession. Shirt was also made a parcel and taken into possession. The hands of the accused were dipped in the glass of water containing Sodium Carbonate. This time again the colour turned pink. The solution was put in a nip and sealed. The applications Ex. PC and PD submitted by complainant Chander Bhan for allotment of turn of canal water were also recovered vide memo Ex. PM. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After obtaining sanction Ex. PN, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. 5. On appearance of the accused before the Court, he was supplied with documents attached with the challan. After hearing the accused and perusing the challan papers, Special Judge, Patiala framed charges against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined HC Gurbhej PW-1 and C. Paramjit Singh, PW-2, who proved their affidavits Ex. PA and Ex. PB respectively, which they tendered in evidence. Kirpal Singh, PW-3 stated that applications Ex. PC and PD moved by complainant were forwarded by Harchand Singh, XEN for necessary action and the report of Halqa Patwari was required to decide the case for allotment of the turn of canal water. PA and Ex. PB respectively, which they tendered in evidence. Kirpal Singh, PW-3 stated that applications Ex. PC and PD moved by complainant were forwarded by Harchand Singh, XEN for necessary action and the report of Halqa Patwari was required to decide the case for allotment of the turn of canal water. Complainant Chander Bhan PW-4 deposed about the making of applications by him for allotment of turn of canal water and the demand of bribe made by the appellant. He also mentioned about the various details of the raid conducted by the vigilance during which the tainted money was recovered from the appellant. His cousin Sat Pal PW-5 was the shadow witness and he corroborated the statement of the complaint. Sat Pal Singh PW-6 deposed about the posting of the appellant as canal patwari in Devigarh Division. He also proved sanction Ex. PN given by Executive Engineer on 18.7.2001 for the prosecution of the appellant. DSP Gurmukh Singh PW-7 and DSP Narinder Pal Kaushal PW-8 deposed about the conducting of the raid and the completion of the investigation, whereafter the challan was presented. 7. The case of the prosecution was then put to the accused when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He claimed that he was innocent and falsely involved in the case. However, he did not examine any witness in support of his plea. 8. After holding that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. However, no separate conviction was ordered under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal. 9. I have heard the argument addressed by counsel for the appellant as well as by the State and with their assistance perused the records of the case. 10. According to Chander Bhan PW-4, when he along with Sat Pal met the appellant, he asked him if he had brought the money. At this, he handed over the tainted currency notes of Rs. 700/- to the accused. Sat Pal PW-5, deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused demanded Rs. 1,000/- but Chander Bhan told him that he had only Rs. 700/-. At this Chander Bhan handed over Rs. 700/- to the accused. He put the same in his shirt pocket. Chander Bhan is totally silent about the demand of Rs. 700/- to the accused. Sat Pal PW-5, deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused demanded Rs. 1,000/- but Chander Bhan told him that he had only Rs. 700/-. At this Chander Bhan handed over Rs. 700/- to the accused. He put the same in his shirt pocket. Chander Bhan is totally silent about the demand of Rs. 1,000/- made by the accused at the time of raid. As according to him, the demand made was for Rs. 700/-. No request was made by the Public Prosecutor for declaring Sat Pal PW-5 as hostile. By deposing that Rs. 1,000/- was first demanded by the accused and Chander Bhan complainant telling the accused that he had only Rs. 700/- with him, which said Chander Bhan handed over to the accused, Sat Pal PW-5 has knocked out the prosecution case. I may quote here the actual words used by Sat Pal PW-5 while deposing about the demand made by the accused and handing over of the tainted notes by the complainant to him. "..... The remaining police party stayed at some distance in the street. Amrit Lal then demanded Rs. 1,000/- but Chander Bhan told him that he had only Rs. 700/-. Thereafter Chander Bhan handed over Rs. 700/- to the accused who put the same in his shirt pocket...." 11. As per Chander Bhan PW-4, when he handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused, Sat Pal gave the signal to the raiding party and on receipt of the signal the raiding party entered the house of the accused. Further that the accused first kept the money in the pocket of his shirt and thereafter kept the money under his leg. Sat Pal PW-5 deposed that the accused put the tainted currency notes in his shirt pocket whereafter he gave a signal to the police party. On receiving the said signal, the DSP along with other officials came inside. The DSP inquired the name of the appellant and introduced himself to him. The hands of the (appellant) were then washed in a solution of water and powder and the colour turned pink. 12. Sat Pal PW did not mention anywhere that the accused first put the tainted currency notes in his shirt pocket and thereafter placed them under his legs. A perusal of the statement of DSP Gurmukh Singh PW-7 makes an interesting reading. 12. Sat Pal PW did not mention anywhere that the accused first put the tainted currency notes in his shirt pocket and thereafter placed them under his legs. A perusal of the statement of DSP Gurmukh Singh PW-7 makes an interesting reading. According to him the accused had put Rs. 700/- bribe money in his front shirt pocket and on seeing the raiding party, he concealed the same under his right thigh while sitting on a cot. ".... The accused had putting Rs. 700/- bribe money in the front shirt pocket. On seeing us, he concealed the same under the right thigh while sitting on a cot, ....." 13. Chander Bhan PW-4 did not mention anywhere that the accused put the tainted money in the front shirt pocket, took out the same on seeing the raiding party and placed those notes under his right leg/thigh. According to him the keeping of the money in the pocket of the shirt and thereafter under the leg by the accused happened before the raiding party reached that place. After the raiding party which consisted of DSP Gurmukh Singh PW-7 had seen the accused keeping the tainted currency notes under his thigh, there was no need for the DSP to ask the accused as to where he kept the same. Chander Bhan went on the state that DSP asked the accused where he had kept the bribe money. To that the accused replied that he had not taken any money. At this said Chander Bhan told the DSP that the accused had kept the money under his leg. When the DSP asked the accused to stand up, the tainted money was recovered. We have, thus, clearly contradictory evidence before us regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe money at the time of the raid and about the place where the bribe money after acceptance was kept by the accused. The statement of complainant Chander Bhan in regard to the demand made by the accused at the time of the raid has not been corroborated by none else than his own cousin Sat Pal PW-5. According to former, the demand was only for Rs. 700/- where as the latter stated that the accused first demanded Rs. 1,000/- and on learning that the complainant had brought only Rs. 700/- that he accepted the bribe money from the complainant. 14. According to former, the demand was only for Rs. 700/- where as the latter stated that the accused first demanded Rs. 1,000/- and on learning that the complainant had brought only Rs. 700/- that he accepted the bribe money from the complainant. 14. Coming to the question of recovery of tainted money, the prosecution was to examine Satinder Singh Nanda, Research Officer, Language Department, Patiala and Gursharan Kaur Walia, Assistant Director, Language Department, Patiala, who were joined as official witnesses for the purposes of effecting the recovery. However, none of them was examined. Both of them were given as unnecessary on 30.5.2002 when learned Public Prosecutor made a statement to that effect. Recovery memo Ex. PJ was witnessed by Satinder Singh Nanda and Gurcharan Kaur Walia. Name of Sat Pal was also mentioned on the recovery memo Ex. PJ but his signatures do not appear. However, it does contain left thumb impression of Chander Bhan complainant. So, for the purposes of proving the recovery of the tainted money from the accused we have to rely upon the testimony of Chander Bhan complainant himself, apart from the testimony of DSP Gurmukh Singh. 15. In Panna Lal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1191, it was held that the evidence of the complainant in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act is in no better position than an accomplice and as such the same could be accepted only if there was corroboration in material particulars. 16. In Lachman Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 450, the Court refused to convict an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant :- "On the whole, therefore, we are satisfied that there is considerable room for doubt in this case and that the statement of Kishori Lal which alone is the foundation stone of the charge against the appellant cannot be accepted without corroboration. We are satisfied that his conviction and sentence should be set aside." 17. In M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 16 : 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 283, the Court again insisted upon necessity of corroboration to the testimony of a trap witness. It was further held that there must be a demand followed by acceptance. We are satisfied that his conviction and sentence should be set aside." 17. In M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 16 : 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 283, the Court again insisted upon necessity of corroboration to the testimony of a trap witness. It was further held that there must be a demand followed by acceptance. Mere demand by itself was not sufficient to establish the offence :- "In the light of these conflicting versions and suspicious features on this crucial aspect, the plea of the accused that the notes were put in the drawer without his knowledge, does not appear to be improbable. In any event, PW1s evidence for the abovesaid reasons, does not appear to be wholly reliable. It is in this context the Courts have cautioned that as a rule of prudence, some corroboration is necessary. In all such type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification. Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important and when the accused has come forward with a plea that the currency notes were in the drawer without his knowledge, then there must be clinching evidence to show that it was with the tacit approval of the accused that the money had been put in the drawer as an illegal gratification." 18. Same is the position here in the present case. There is no corroboration to the testimony of Chander Bhan complainant regarding the demand of the bribe money. In fact Sat Pal PW-5, who was a shadow witness belied the said fact by stating that the accused was demanding Rs. 1,000/- and not Rs. 700/- as claimed by the complainant. In view of the said infirmity and also contradiction regarding when the bribe money was placed by the accused under leg/thigh, an effort was made to find some sort of corroboration but in vain. The two witnesses before whom the tainted money was recovered were not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. They were simply given as unnecessary. In view of the said infirmity and also contradiction regarding when the bribe money was placed by the accused under leg/thigh, an effort was made to find some sort of corroboration but in vain. The two witnesses before whom the tainted money was recovered were not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. They were simply given as unnecessary. Unless this Court is satisfied on the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused it is difficult to hold that he accepted the illegal gratification or obtained the same so as to expose himself for punishment for an offence under Section 7 of the Act. 19. Coming to the testimony of DSP Gurmukh Singh PW-7, it may be seen that neither he collected any revenue record to the effect that complainant owned land in the village or he was receiving canal water from the water channel nor he recorded the statement of any other person other than complainant to that effect. He did not offer himself for personal search before searching the accused for the recovery of the bribe money. Although he claimed that he recovered the two applications Ex. PC and PD made by the complainant from the accused, yet he admitted that no revenue record was available in the house of the accused. 20. For the foregoing reasons, I am constrained to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquit him of the charge against him. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted. Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.