JUDGMENT : S.C. Sinho, J. - This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant (accused) under Sec­tion 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the judgment and order of his con­viction passed by the special judge. Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sen­tence of rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default payment of fine amount he further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/-in default, rigorous im­prisonment for 3 months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The offences in question, were alleged to have been commit­ted by appellant on 26.4.1987. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The appellant at the relevant time was posted as Tahsildar Narsinghpur, it is un­disputed that appellant was a public ser­vant. It is alleged by the prosecution that a complaint was made by the villagers against Churaman Mehra, village Kotwar for his inefficiency and inability as such a show cause notice was issued to him, as to why his services be not terminated by appellant? And later on he demanded sum of Rs. 500/- from Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandaiya for filing the proceedings initi­ated against his grandfather Churaman Kotwar who decided to approach Lokayukat police at Jabalpur. Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandaiya (PW-9) grandson of Churaman and his room Mate Dr. Kashtoor Chand Kori (PW-3) went to the office of the Lokayukat police Jabalpur on 25.4.1987 and met Dy. S.P. Hanumant Singh and apprised him of the matter and lodged the complaint Ex. P-12 duly singed by him. It was decided that on next day at about 7.00 a.m. they will proceed to Narsinghpur for trap. 3. On the basis of complaint made by the complainant a trap was arranged on next date i.e. 26.4.1987. on submitting five currency notes of Rs. 100 each by the complainant Dr, Sunil Kumar their numbers were noted down in the pre-trap panchnama Ex. P-6. These currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein pow­der and were kept in an envelope and the enve­lope was kept in the pocket of the complainant. 4. The trap party proceeded to the Narsinghpur and reached there at about 10.00 a.m. it was Sunday, office, was closed. P-6. These currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein pow­der and were kept in an envelope and the enve­lope was kept in the pocket of the complainant. 4. The trap party proceeded to the Narsinghpur and reached there at about 10.00 a.m. it was Sunday, office, was closed. Com­plainant alongwith Dr. Kashtoor Chand Kori went to residence of appellant, the trap team followed him along with the members of the trap party. The complainant and Dr. Kashtoor Chand Kori (P W -3) went to the residence of appellant and knocked the door which was opened by the accused. Appellant called only Dr. Sunil in­side the house and asked whether he has brought five hundred rupees, and treated cur­rency notes were handed over by the complain­ant to the appellant. Complainant went out and gave pre-arranged signal on which members of the trap party alongwith Dr. Kashtoor Chand Kori entered in the residence. After introducing themselves, four currency notes of hundred each were recovered from the appellant and were seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-9. Thereafter phenolphthalein powder test was conducted on the fingers of the appellant. On dipping his fin­gers in the solution of the sodium carbonate the colour of the chemical solution changed to pink which was collected in a separate sealed bottles further inquiry was made for remaining hun­dred rupee note then appellant called his wife. Who brought the fifth currency note and the same was seized as per Ex. P-10 seizure memo and again sodium carbonate test was conducted and the liquid was seized as per memo Ex P-8. The solution gave positive result. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the prelimi­nary trap panchanama. 5. Just after the trap appellant informed Dy. S.P. Hanumant Singh that seized five hundred rupees were paid to him by complainant towards auction money of mango trees but complainant denied it and submitted that money was paid for dropping the proceedings initiated against his grandfather (nana) Churaman Kotwar com­plainant. 6. After the investigation was over, charge sheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who framed charges punishable under Section 7 and Sec. 13 (2) of the prevention cor­ruption Act, 1988. 7. Accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 6. After the investigation was over, charge sheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who framed charges punishable under Section 7 and Sec. 13 (2) of the prevention cor­ruption Act, 1988. 7. Accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The defence of the appellant was that complainant paid five hundred rupees to him towards auction money of six mango trees at a rate, of Rs.75/- each and appellant gave one currency note to his wife who returned a currency note of Rs. 50/- and the same was with Dr. Sunil Kumar just after the trap appellant had intimated this fact to the trap party who inquired this fact from Dr. Sunil Kumar. 8. To substantiate its case prosecution exam­ined 10 witnesses and proved 15 documents on record. In his defence accused submitted writ­ten statement and stated that the aforesaid Rs. 500/- were received by him towards auction money of six mango trees at a rate of 75/- ru­pees a tree and further out of five currency notes he had given one currency note to his wife and took two currency note of 50/- each and out of it one currency note was returned to complain­ant just after the trap he had requested Shri Hanumant Singh Dy. S.P. to take search of com­plainant and recover the currency notes of 507-from the complainant but they did not take search of complainant. 9. The learned Special Judge found charges framed against appellant proved and eventu­ally convicted appellant and passed the sen­tences which we have mentioned herein above. In this manner the present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment of con­viction and, order of sentence. 10. Learned trial Judge, mainly relying on the evidence of complainant Dr. Sunil Kumar (P.W-9). Hanumant Singh Dy. S.P. (P.W-4), Dr. S.J. Puntamekar (PW.-6); Subhash Kumar MisKra (P.W.-8). Ramchaian Pandya (P.W.-10) held the accused guilty and convicted and sen­tenced him as mentioned above, 11. In the present case the Churamani Kotwar, died before he could be examined but merely because Churamani died, it would not mean that the guilt cannot be proved. It can be proved by other evidence. 12. Shri S.C. Dart, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant accused submitted that the evidence of complainant Sunil Kumar PW.-9 was wholly unreliable. The trial Court erred in holding that the demand of bribe by the accused was made. It can be proved by other evidence. 12. Shri S.C. Dart, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant accused submitted that the evidence of complainant Sunil Kumar PW.-9 was wholly unreliable. The trial Court erred in holding that the demand of bribe by the accused was made. Except the sole evidence of com­plainant there is no corroborating evidence, the complainant entertained a grudge against the accused because he apprehended action of re­moval of his grandfather at his hands as there were number of complaints by the villagers and proceeding was going on. It was admitted by the complainant in his written statement that ap­pellant has accepted the five hundred rupees towards auction of six mango trees and there­fore, out of five hundred rupees only four hun­dred rupees were kept by him and remaining one currency note was handed over to his wife, who returned two currency notes of 50 rupees each and one currency note of 50/- rupees was paid to the complainant. Merely by seizure of currency notes from the appellant it could not be held that money was accepted by the ac­cused for bribe. 13. On the other hand, Shri Aditya Adhikan, learned counsel for the S.P.E. Lokayukat sub­mitted that the evidence of complainant was wholly reliable since it was established that pro­ceedings for removing Churamani Kotwar was pending before the appellant, who had made demand of Rs. 500/- it was established that ac­cused demanded bribe. According to him the finding of conviction recorded by special judge, was fully justified. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record minutely. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant admit­ted that appellant is a public servant and not challenged the validity of the sanction order (Ex.P-5). After going through the sanction order we find that the government had granted valid sanction for prosecution of the accused and at the relevant time he was public servant. 16. In Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SCI 191, the Apex Court had held that :- "There could be no doubt that the evi­dence of the complainant should be cor­roborated in material particulars. 16. In Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SCI 191, the Apex Court had held that :- "There could be no doubt that the evi­dence of the complainant should be cor­roborated in material particulars. After in­troduction of Section 165-A of the IPC making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corrobo-ration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be in­sisted upon." 17. In Punjab Rao v. State of Maharashtra., 2002 (10) SCC 371 , the 'Apex Court has held:- "it is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for re­ceipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been es­tablished it is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution but can establish the same by probability." "In Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat., AIR 1976 S.C. 1497 Apex Court held that the burden that the rests on an accused to dis­place the statutory presumption that is raised under Section 4 (1) of the Act, is not onerous as that cast on the prosecu­tion to prove its case. But such burden has to be discharged by bringing on record evidence either direct or circumstantial to establish with reasonable probability that the money was accepted by him other than as a motive or reward as is referred to in Section 161 of IPC." 18. It is now beyond any cavil that where two views of a story appear to be probable the one that was contended by the accused should be accepted as held in K. Gopal Reddy v State of AP. (1979) 1 SCC 355 ; Iota Singh v. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 529 and Hem Raj v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 614 . 19. In the present case the star witness is Dr. Sunil Kumar (P.W.-9) who made written com­plaint. Ex. P-12 before Special Police establish­ment, Jabalpur duly signed by him. On going through the complaint Ex. P-12 it is revealed that Tahsildar Narsinghpur made demand of bribe of Rs. 19. In the present case the star witness is Dr. Sunil Kumar (P.W.-9) who made written com­plaint. Ex. P-12 before Special Police establish­ment, Jabalpur duly signed by him. On going through the complaint Ex. P-12 it is revealed that Tahsildar Narsinghpur made demand of bribe of Rs. 500/- from the complainant for not removing his grandfather (Nana) from the post of Kotwar who was working under him. This witness specifically admitted during his cross ex­amination in Para 20 and 27, that when appel­lant was caught by the trap party, he told them that these five hundred rupees were given by the complainant towards auction money of six mango trees at a rate of 75/- per mango tree as per government instructions, and four hundred rupees he kept with himself and remaining 100 rupee currency note he had given to his wife who had returned two currency notes of 50/-rupee eech out of it he returned one currency note of 50/- rupee to the complainant. How­ever, this witness has denied that aforesaid money was paid regarding auction money of mango trees. Shri D.K, Swami (P.W-7) reader of Tahsildar has produced. "Article A" Tree Parta Book of the year 1987 and stated as per instruc­tion of the government. Parta of mango trees were to be granted to various farmers on pay­ment of premium end on basis of receipt no. 651 to 673. (of Article A) Patta of various mango trees were allotted to various farmers and some of the receipt were signed by appellant. This trap took place on 26.4.1987 i.e. Sunday this wit­nesses has further stated in para-3 of his cross examination that on 26.4.87 (Sunday) appel­lant had called him in the office for depositing of premium of mango trees from the fanners. It is well known that Executive Officers are sup­posed to carry out their official duties, around the clock and this argument of government Ad­vocate cannot be accepted that why appellant accepted the premium amount on Sunday at his residence without issuing receipt. 20. Dr. Kashtoor Chand Kori (P.W.-3) is a friend of complainant Dr. Sunil Kumar they went together to lodge the report before Special Po­lice Establishment, Jabalpur as well as he ac­companied him upto the residence of appellant however, he was not called by the appellant inside the drawing room but his presence out­side the residence is not disputed because pre­liminary panchanama Ex. Kashtoor Chand Kori (P.W.-3) is a friend of complainant Dr. Sunil Kumar they went together to lodge the report before Special Po­lice Establishment, Jabalpur as well as he ac­companied him upto the residence of appellant however, he was not called by the appellant inside the drawing room but his presence out­side the residence is not disputed because pre­liminary panchanama Ex. P-6 and final panchanama Ex. P-7 and other documents re­garding trap proceedings Ex. P-8 to P-11 bear his signatures. This witness is declared hostile but only on this count his statement cannot be disbelieved, this witness has specifically stated that he alongwith complainant went to the resi­dence of the appellant and in his presence com­plainant paid some amount towards auction money of mango trees and appellant returned 50/- rupee to the complainant P.W.-8 Shri Subhash Kumar Mishra, Police Inspector in Para 5 and PW10 Ramcharan Panda.Police Inspec­tor in Para 24 of their cross examination spe­cifically admitted that just after the trap appel­lant stated that he had not taken any bribe from complainant but he received five hundred ru­pees from complainant towards auction money of six mango trees at the rate of 75/- rupees and out of this he had returned 50/- rupee to the complainant. Appellant's version is further sup­ported by seizure memo (Ex. P-9 and P-10) because just after the trap only four currency notes of hundred rupee each were seized from the appellant whereas fifth currency note was given by Smt. Sarju Patel W/o appellant and as per Ex. P-10 seizure memo. There was no rea­son that just after the trap, out of five hundred rupees received why appellant kept only four hundred rupees with him and one currency note handed over to his wife, thus his defence seems to be probable that because 50/- rupees were to be returned back to the complainant regard­ing mango trees auction therefore, aforesaid hundred rupee note was handed over to his wife who returned two notes of 50/- rupees each. 21. Subhash Kumar Mishra (PW-8) had re­corded Ex. D-4 police statement of Dr. Sunil Kumar on 24.6.1987 on the date of incident, it is mentioned in the last Para of Ex. D-4 that Dy. S.P., inquired from him whether he paid afore­said amount towards auction money of mango trees. However, Sunil Kumar denied it. 21. Subhash Kumar Mishra (PW-8) had re­corded Ex. D-4 police statement of Dr. Sunil Kumar on 24.6.1987 on the date of incident, it is mentioned in the last Para of Ex. D-4 that Dy. S.P., inquired from him whether he paid afore­said amount towards auction money of mango trees. However, Sunil Kumar denied it. But facts remains that when appellant was trapped he said that complainant paid auction money of mango trees to him and further as per his defence only four currency notes were seized from him as per Ex. P-9 seizure memo, whereas fifth currency note was seized as per Ex.P-10 from his wife because she had returned two notes of 50/- ru­pees each and 50/- rupees were returned to com­plainant towards balance. The said defence of appellant cannot be said to be after thought because, it was stated at the spot itself when he was caught and further it is corroborated by two seizure memos regarding trap money. The Court below disbelieved the defence on the pretext that cost per mango tree was 20/- rupees as per Tree Patta Book and fur­ther 20/- rupees each were recovered from other farmers as per receipt No.651-673. In this re­gard PW-7 Dr. K. Swami Reader of Tahsildar has specifically stated that in his presence ap­pellant had directed Churaman Kotwar to collect Rs. 75/- per mango tree and Churaman had intimated that one farmer was prepared to pur­chase six mango trees at a rate of 75/- rupees. 22. It may be that in a situation of this na­ture the court may entertain a strong suspicion, that in all probabilities the accused is, guilty of taking bribe but, applying well settled principle of law that suspicion, howsoever grave may be, cannot be a substitute for proof, the same would lead to the only conclusion herein that the pros­ecution has not been able to prove its case be­yond all reasonable doubt as held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 . 23. Learned Senior Advocate of the appel­lant Shri Datt submitted that sole witness Sunil Kurnar Chandiya (PW-9) in Para 22 of cross examination simply said that he went inside the drawing room of appellant informed him pur­pose of coming and gave trap money (Rs. 500/-) to him. 23. Learned Senior Advocate of the appel­lant Shri Datt submitted that sole witness Sunil Kurnar Chandiya (PW-9) in Para 22 of cross examination simply said that he went inside the drawing room of appellant informed him pur­pose of coming and gave trap money (Rs. 500/-) to him. Learned Advocate of the appellant submitted that appellant did not demand the money. For obtaining illegal gratification de­mand is to be made by appellant. Demand on the part of the appellant is an essential element of the offence and therefore, the demand is re­quired to be proved, as an independent fact. The word obtains has been intentionally used by legislature and it has a definite meaning there­fore, before anyone can be convicted under these provisions, it is necessary to prove that it was a result of demand that money was passed on. Passing of money is a consequence of de­mand and if demand is also not proved it goes against the prosecution. On close scrutiny of the evidence of the complainant Sunil Kumar we find that his evidence in respect of demand by way of bribe is not clear. 24. We have carefully perused the explana­tion given by the appellant regarding Rs. 500/-the evidence of P.W. -3 Dr. Kashtoor Chand Kori, P.W.-4 Hanumant Singh P.W. 6 Dr. S.J. Puntemekar, P.W. -7 D.K. Swami clearly sup­port the explanation given by the appellant. 25. Thus, on overall consideration of the matter in our opinion it cannot be concluded that the case against the appellant/accused has proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused in our opinion is entitled to benefit of doubt. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, Con­viction of appellant is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is said to be on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Amount of fine if paid be returned to the accused. Appeal allowed.