Judgment ( 1. ) DESPITE repeated calls and passing over the case twice, none appeared on behalf of either party, therefore, this appeal is being disposed of after careful and cautious perusal of the material on record in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in Bani Singh Vs. State of U. P, AIR 1996 SC 2439 . ( 2. ) APPELLANT Maqbool Ali has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28. 11. 1996 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge and Special judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 17/1990, convicting him under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to R. I. for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-and R. I. for one year with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, on each count, respectively. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 29. 03. 1990 the appellant was posted as Head Clerk in Carriage and Wagon Personnel Section of the office of divisional Railway Manager (D. M. R. ). Complainant Sukhlal (PW-2) who happened to be a "khalasi" in Railway Department had applied for advance of his provident fund on 28. 03. 1990. On 29. 03. 1990, his application was sent to d. R. M. office. When he made inquiries in the office and met the appellant and requested him for getting the advance sanctioned, the appellant made a demand of Rs. 100/-for sanctioning the advance. Being frustrated, he went to the office of C. B. I. and submitted a written report (Exhibit P/4) saying that he did not wish to give bribe. The Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. handed over the matter to C. B. I. Inspector R. K. Shukla (PW-7 ). Inspector R. K. Shukla summoned two independent witnesses from the office of Oriental Insurance Company. The oriental Insurance Company sent Lalit Bohre (PW-3) and K. K. Sarin (PW-4)before whom the complaint was read over and accepted by the complainant. Thereafter, a demonstration of trap by phenolphthalein powder was done and two currency notes of Rs. 50/-were obtained from complainant Sukhlal and were treated with phenolphthalein powder. After keeping these notes in the pocket of complainant Sukhlal, he was asked to hand over the same to appellant as a bribe if demanded by him. Thereafter, a demonstration of trap by phenolphthalein powder was done and two currency notes of Rs. 50/-were obtained from complainant Sukhlal and were treated with phenolphthalein powder. After keeping these notes in the pocket of complainant Sukhlal, he was asked to hand over the same to appellant as a bribe if demanded by him. A preliminary memorandum (Exhibit p/5) was drawn and the trap party went to the office of D. R. M. . Complainant sukhlal and Lalit Bohre (PW-3) went inside the office and Sukhlal requested the appellant to get his advance of provident fund sanctioned. When the appellant demanded Rs. 100/-, Sukhlal handed over the tainted currency notes to him, which he put in his purse. On a signal being given by Sukhlal, the trap party reached there. Inspector Khan and Inspector Vinay Kumar caught hold the wrist of appellant. Inspector R. K. Shukla (PW-7) after giving his introduction got his hand dipped in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. Thereafter, purse in which the currency notes were kept was taken out from his pocket and two notes of Rs. 50/-were recovered. The numbers of currency notes tallied to the numbers of notes recorded in a preliminary memorandum (Exhibit P/5 ). The notes and sodium carbonate solution were seized and the trap proceeding memorandum (Exhibit P/6) was prepared. Solutions were sent to the Forensic science Laboratory for chemical examination and its report (Exhibit P/16) was received. After requisite investigation and after obtaining the sanction (Exhibit p/1) from the D. R. M. , the charge sheet was filed and the case was put up for trial. ( 4. ) DURING the trial, appellant/accused pleaded false implication and stated that complainant Sukhlal had borrowed Rs. 100/-from him in past and had repaid the same. He had not demanded bribe from him as he was not dealing with the applications pertaining to advance of provident fund and that he was busy in some other work with respect to supplementary examination of railway Ticket Examiners. ( 5. ) IN order to substantiate the accusation, the prosecution examined ram Suklal (PW-1), complainant Sukhlal (PW-2), Lalit Bohre (PW-3), K. K. Sarin (PW-4) who are employees of Oriental Insurance Company, Surajpal Yadav (PW-5), Head Clerk in Railways, Mahesh Prasad (PW-6), Superintendent grade-II and R. K. Shukla (PW-7), Sub-Inspector C. B. I. . ( 5. ) IN order to substantiate the accusation, the prosecution examined ram Suklal (PW-1), complainant Sukhlal (PW-2), Lalit Bohre (PW-3), K. K. Sarin (PW-4) who are employees of Oriental Insurance Company, Surajpal Yadav (PW-5), Head Clerk in Railways, Mahesh Prasad (PW-6), Superintendent grade-II and R. K. Shukla (PW-7), Sub-Inspector C. B. I. . Appellant also examined hari Ram (DW-1), Bal Govind Shukla (DW-2) and helper Bhola Ram (DW-3), in his defence. ( 6. ) RELYING upon the prosecution evidence, Trial Court held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. ( 7. ) ON perusal of the evidence of complainant Sukhlal (PW-2), it is seen that he had applied for temporary withdrawal from the provident fund deposit by making an application (Exhibit P/2) on 28. 03. 1990. According to him, when he approached to the appellant for getting the advance sanctioned, he demanded Rs. 100/-as a bribe. Despite his requests that he was a poor man and he required money for engagement of his niece, the appellant did not yield to his requests. On 30. 03. 1990, he approached to the Superintendent of Police, c. B. I. and submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P/4 ). On application being marked to Inspector R. K. Shukla (PW-7), a trap was arranged. Services of Lalit bohre (PW-3) and K. K. Sarin (PW-4) serving in the Oriental Insurance Company were requisitioned and a memorandum of demonstration (Exhibit P/5) was prepared. Sukhlal (PW-2) stated that he along with the trap party went to the d. R. M. office where, in presence of Lalit Bohre (PW-3), he handed over two currency notes of Rs. 50/-which were treated with phenolphthalein powder. On his giving signal, the members of trap party reached there and Inspector Khan and Inspector Vinay Kumar caught hold the hands of appellant. The hands of appellant were washed with a solution, colour of which turned pink. Thereafter, inspector R. K. Shukla (PW-7) took out the purse from pocket of appellant in which he had kept the money. The numbers of currency notes tallied with the numbers noted in the memorandum (Exhibit P/5 ). Purse, hands and shirt of complainant Sukhlal were also washed in the solution whereby colour of solution turned pink. Memorandum (Exhibit P/6) was drawn about the proceedings of trap. ( 8. ) IN cross-examination, complainant Sukhlal (PW-2) admitted that on 29. 03. The numbers of currency notes tallied with the numbers noted in the memorandum (Exhibit P/5 ). Purse, hands and shirt of complainant Sukhlal were also washed in the solution whereby colour of solution turned pink. Memorandum (Exhibit P/6) was drawn about the proceedings of trap. ( 8. ) IN cross-examination, complainant Sukhlal (PW-2) admitted that on 29. 03. 1990 at about 12:00 hours, the appellant had demanded bribe. Since he felt harassed, he went to his house and went on thinking as to what should he do. He did not tell anybody in the D. R. M. office that the appellant was demanding the money. According to him, he knew beforehand that if the bribe is demanded then a report can be made to the C. B. I. office. He did not lodge the report immediately after the demand because he took some time to think over it. In paragraph No. 22 of his statement, he stated that when he approached to appellant, he said that his application was kept under 9-10 other applications. He did not know that that Anil Chandurkar used to send the applications to Divisional Office after making entries in the Dak-Book. He did not know that the applications were sent to Divisional Pay Master for payment and after identification by the Supervisor, the payment was to be made. Though there were many Supervisors, but he did not make any complaint to them about the demand of bribe by the appellant. He denied the suggestion that on 21. 03. 1990 he had borrowed Rs. 100/-from the appellant with a promise to pay back on the next day, but when he did not pay the money on demand being made by him, he got annoyed and concocted the false case of bribery. ( 9. ) SO far as the trap proceedings and recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of appellant are concerned, the evidence of complainant Sukhlal is supported by the evidence of Lalit Bohre (PW-3) and k. K. Sarin (PW-4) who are independent witnesses and have categorically stated that the tainted currency notes were given by the complainant to appellant and same were recovered from his purse. ( 10. ) THE important question is, whether, the illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant for doing or not doing favour to the complainant in the official work of appellant? ( 10. ) THE important question is, whether, the illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant for doing or not doing favour to the complainant in the official work of appellant? So far as the demand of Rs. 100/-by way of illegal gratification is concerned, the sole evidence is of complainant Sukhlal. Though it finds corroboration from his complaint (Exhibit P/4) made to the superintendent of Police, C. B. I. and the persons before whom he disclosed that the appellant was demanding the money, but his conduct appears to be suspicious in view of his admission that he did not disclose this fact to any of the Supervisors or other officers of the Railway Department. It is also suspicious that the complaint was made on 30. 03. 1990 i. e. merely after two days after making an application for withdrawal of provident fund. ( 11. ) SURAJPAL Yadav (PW-5) who was working as Head Clerk in the office of Superintendent, Carriage and Wagon, deposed that complainant sukhlal had made an application Exhibit P/10 for withdrawal of advance of provident fund on 28. 03. 1990 before the then Office Superintendent. This application bears the signature of Chandan Singh Thakur. This application was to be sent to D. R. M. office. His application was sent by him with a forwarding letter (Exhibit P/8) and this was entered in the office of D. R. M. on 29. 03. 1990. The applications received in the D. R. M. office are sent to the Welfare Branch and then again they are sent for further action to D. R. M. office. Hari Ram (DW1) was the Head Clerk in D. R. M. office. It was duty of Hari Ram to send the applications to the concerned branches. In the course of proceedings, the applications for withdrawal of funds were sent to Group Clerk Anil Chandurkar who was required to send the applications to the office of Superintendent. Thereafter, the applications were to be sent to the Assistant Works Officer and again the same were to be forwarded to the Group Clerk Anil Chandurkar for further forwarding it to the Circle Accounts Officer. The Accounts Officer had to examine whether the payment from provident fund could be made or not. After all the process, the concerned person was to be identified by the Supervisor. The Accounts Officer had to examine whether the payment from provident fund could be made or not. After all the process, the concerned person was to be identified by the Supervisor. Surajpal Yadav (PW-5) further stated that complainant Sukhlal used to pull rickshaw and generally did not perform his duty sincerely. The evidence of surajpal Yadav (PW-5) stands supported by the evidence of Mahesh Prasad (PW-6) who at the relevant time was working as Superintendent, Grade-II in the carriage and Wagon Section of D. R. M. office, Jabalpur. From his evidence also, it appears that a long procedure has to be followed before the payment is sanctioned from provident fund. The application for withdrawal has to move through number of hands. He deposed that on 29. 03. 1990 when the application of Sukhlal was received in D. R. M. office, on the same day 61 similar applications were received by R. N. Tripathi. ( 12. ) HARI Ram (DW-1) who was also working as Head Clerk in D. R. M. office, Jabalpur stated that the applications in respect to advance from provident fund are received in Personnel Section of D. R. M. office and are sent to the Welfare Section. At that time, R. N. Tripathi was working in the Welfare section. On 30. 03. 1990, 4 applications including the application of Sukhlal were received in the office. The applications were then sent to Group Clerk Anil chandurkar. After the lunch-brake at 1:30 pm, these applications were to be received by the concerned Clerks, but suddenly at about 2:00 pm the appellant was caught by the C. B. I. team. When the C. B. I. team inquired into the matter, they took away the application of Sukhlal from his section because the said application by that time was kept in his (Hari Rams) register. He further stated that on 30. 03. 1990, the appellant had not dealt with the application of Sukhlal. On 30. 03. 1990, the supplementary examination of Ticket Examiners was going on and the appellant was asked to do the work in that examination along with assistant Works Officer M. K. Sharma. According to this witness, when he asked the appellant, he told him that Sukhlal had given money to him saying that he was returning the money which he had borrowed. The fact that Sukhlal had borrowed Rs. According to this witness, when he asked the appellant, he told him that Sukhlal had given money to him saying that he was returning the money which he had borrowed. The fact that Sukhlal had borrowed Rs. 100/-from the appellant is supported by Bal Govind Shukla (DW2 ). Bal Govind stated that while he and the appellant were taking tea in a hotel, the appellant had given money to Sukhlal (PW-2 ). ( 13. ) THE reasoning assigned by the Trial Court for not believing the story of lending money to Sukhlal by the appellant, does not appear just and proper. Trial Court does not appear correct in presuming that a person who handed over Rs. 100/- to the C. B. I. for arranging a trap could have paid Rs. 100/ to the appellant, if he had borrowed from him. ( 14. ) IN order to establish an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is essential to prove that the public servant accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing or for forbearing to do an official act or for showing any favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering any service or disservice to any person. Merely the acceptance of money by the public servant cannot give rise to inference about the commission of offence unless it is established beyond doubt that he had accepted money by way of illegal gratification for showing favour or disfavour to the complainant. ( 15. ) AS discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, except the sole evidence of complainant Sukhlal (PW-2) that the appellant demanded bribe from him, there is no independent evidence to corroborate this fact. The conduct of complainant does not appear to be above suspicion from the fact that he did not tell a single word to any other officer of the Railway Department about the said demand of bribe. The application for advance was submitted on 28. 03. 1990 and the complaint was made to C. B. I. just on 30. 03. 1990 whereas before the advance from provident fund was sanctioned, the application had to pass through number of hands as per the official procedure. The application for advance was submitted on 28. 03. 1990 and the complaint was made to C. B. I. just on 30. 03. 1990 whereas before the advance from provident fund was sanctioned, the application had to pass through number of hands as per the official procedure. There appears no genuine reason to disbelieve the evidence of Hari Ram (DW-1) which partially finds support from the evidence of Surajpal Yadav (PW-5) and Mahesh Prasad (PW-6 ). In my opinion, though it has been established by the prosecution evidence that the appellant accepted money from the complainant, but it was not established beyond doubt that the said money was obtained or accepted by him as a motive for doing or showing any favour to the complainant. Explanation furnished by the appellant cannot be held to be false that he accepted money at the hands of complainant Sukhlal presuming it to be the repayment of loan advanced by him. ( 16. ) AFTER considering the various aspects of the case, I think that the prosecution has failed to prove accusation against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is set aside. Appellant is acquitted. Appellant is on bail, his bail bond stands discharged. Appeal allowed.