Order Pradeep Kumar, J.-Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th December, 2002 passed in R.C. No. 13(A) of 1994(R) by Devendra Kumar Lal, 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, by which he found the sole appellant B. Narain guilty under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that there was no occasion for the appellant to demand Rs. 2,500/- from the informant, since the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana, was sanctioned by the Government, in which the petitioner has no hand being the Branch Manager of Kishore Ganj, Punjab National Bank, Ranchi. As per rule, before the money is released, it is the duty of the manager to see that the loanee deposits the margin money, which was Rs. 5,000/- for Rs.1,00,000/- and since the amount was sanctioned in his favour, he was directed by the Branch Manager to deposit the same and on the date of occurrence the informant came with Rs. 2,500/-, which was the part payment of the margin money and the same to be deposited by the informant being the 5% of the sanctioned loan and since he came to office late and there was no chance to deposit on the same day, as such, he asked him to keep the money for being deposited on the next day, but the same was recovered by the raiding party. It is not a case of demand of any bribe and as such, the conviction of the appellant is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the vigilance, has submitted that it is a full proof case, where recovery was made from the possession of the appellant-Branch Manager and as such, he has rightly been convicted. 5. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the vigilance, has submitted that it is a full proof case, where recovery was made from the possession of the appellant-Branch Manager and as such, he has rightly been convicted. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the complainant Sanjay Kumar Sinha stating therein that he is the resident of Kishore Ganj, Ranchi and has passed Matriculation and he applied for loan of Rs.1,00,000/- under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana in November, 1993 in Punjab National Bank, Kishore Ganj Branch and after his interview, his application was forwarded. Subsequently, the Branch Manager B. Narain recommended him for training at DIC and he was taking training from 27.4.1994 and when his training was near to completion he met the Branch Manager, B. Narain, who asked him to bring Rs. 5,000/- then he will get the loan amount. On 6th May, 1994 when he met him, he again asked him to bring Rs. 5,000/- but he told that he can arrange Rs. 2,500/- and rest' Rs. 2,500/- he will give later on, then he asked him to come with Rs. 2,500/-. He made an application to the C.B.I. That he is a poor man, he cannot arrange Rs.2,500/-, which is being demanded as bribe by the Branch Manager. Hence, after receiving his complaint, CBI directed Mr. P.K. Panigrihi, Inspector, CBI, to verify the matter. The said Inspector of C.B.1.interrogated the complainant, who showed him letter dated 13.4.1994 issued by Sri B. Narain regarding sanction of loan amount. Thus, he reported that from the interrogation of the complainant it reveals that the allegation made by him against Sri B. Narain regarding demand of illegal gratification is true and correct and on the basis of the report submitted by Sri P.K. Panigrihi recommending for registration of a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the F.I.R. was lodged by the Inspector of CBI Mr. D. B. Singh. Subsequently, charge-sheet was submitted against Sri B. Narain under SeCtion 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was tried by Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi as aforesaid, who found the appellant guilty. 6. It appears that in course of trial, prosecution has examined eight witnesses. D. B. Singh. Subsequently, charge-sheet was submitted against Sri B. Narain under SeCtion 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was tried by Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi as aforesaid, who found the appellant guilty. 6. It appears that in course of trial, prosecution has examined eight witnesses. P.W. 1 Madan Mohan Verma, who is the Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank, Patna stated in Court that at the time of occurrence he was posted as Senior Manager at Regional Office of Punjab National Bank, Ranchi and he had forwarded the loan application of the informant Sanjay Kumar Sinha to the Manager, Kishore Ganj Branch. He proved his signatLire on the forwarding letter. 7. PW-2, is Prem Lal Madan, Zonal Manager of Punjab National Bank, Kolkata. He stated that in 1993-94 he was posted as Assistant Zonal Manager of Patna Zone of Punjab National Bank and he had sanctioned the prosecution of the Branch Manager B: Narain and he proved his signature on the sanctioned letter as Exts.-1 and 1/1. 8. P.W. 3, Shailendra Singh, is the Senior Officer of CCL. He stated that he was posted as Fire Engineer in CCL, Darbhanga House on 9.5.1994 and on the verbal direction of the Senior Security Officer Shri D.P. Jha, he accompanied the' CBI Inspector to the Office of the Branch Manger, Punjab National Bank, Kishore Ganj Branch since he was said by the Inspector that the allegation has been made by the complainant Sanjay Kumar Sinha that the Branch Manager is demanding Rs. 5,000/for giving loan. He stated that the Inspector got 25 notes of P. 100/ and thereafter, put phenolphthalein powder over the same and he proved his signature on the same as Exts.-2/2, 2/3 and 2/6. Subsequently, on the same day at about 4.10 P.M. he left with the CBI team alongwith the complainant to' the Chamber of the Branch Manager. The Manager was sitting in his room and the complainant entered into his room and said that he has complied his direction and after 14-15 days he will give Rs. 2,500/- as asked by him. The Manager took the money from him and after counting, put the same on the right side of his table. Thereafter, he alongwith other inspector entered into the Chamber of the Manager and the same was recovered from him. 2,500/- as asked by him. The Manager took the money from him and after counting, put the same on the right side of his table. Thereafter, he alongwith other inspector entered into the Chamber of the Manager and the same was recovered from him. Thereafter, the notes were washed, which became pink and the liquid was kept in a bottle, which was marked as Ext.-5, in which he also signed and proved his signature as Ext.-2/8. In his cross-examination, he stated that at the time when the money was given by the complainant, he was outside the Chamber and since there was glass all round the Chamber, he could see the proceedings going inside. 9. P.W. 4, is Gopi Chand Ram, another Inspector of CCI, who accompanied the raiding party and has also proved the same i.e. the recovery of the money kept in the envelop, which was recovered from the table of the Branch Manager. In his cross-examination at para-7, he stated that before trap, he was not present there and was outside the Chamber of the Manager and he heard nothing. He has signed the memorandum, which is the post-trap memorandum. 10. P.W. 5, is Krishna Chandra Lal Das, he stated 'that from 14.7.1992 to September, 1998 he was posted in the District Industry Department (Zila Udyoge Bibhag), Ranchi as General Manager and under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, since the petitioner was a Matriculate and his income was less than Rs. 24,000/- annually in last three years, his application . was allowed on the basis of his affidavit and other documents. The application was duly verified and a project report was submitted by Sri Ramji Prasad Singh, Industry Developer, which he proved as Ext.-4. He also proved the sanction order as Ext.-5. In his cross-examination he submitted that after the loan is sanctioned on the recommendation of the task force, then the same is communicated to the Branch Manager of the Bank and when it is received by the Bank, then only the loan is granted; In this case sanctioned was communicated to the Branch Manager on 17 4.1994. In para-7 of his cross-examination, he stated that when Rs.1,00,000/- is recommended for loan then the recipient has to deposit Rs. 5,000/- for opening an" account in his name in the Bank and after he opens the account and on depositing Rs. In para-7 of his cross-examination, he stated that when Rs.1,00,000/- is recommended for loan then the recipient has to deposit Rs. 5,000/- for opening an" account in his name in the Bank and after he opens the account and on depositing Rs. 5,000/- then only the loan amount is released to him, otherwise the Bank will refuse to pay the loan amount even after sanctioned. He also stated that 'before the loan amount is distributed, he has to complete 15 days of training in the District Industry Center and he has to produce a certificate granted by the District Industry Center that he has completed the training, then only the money will be deposited. He stated that he cannot say as to whether the complainant has completed his training and deposited Rs. 5,000/- or not. 11. P.W. 6, Umesh Prakash Sinha, Steno-cum-Typist, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, has stated that in 1994 he was posted in the Regional Office and his Regional Manager was Mr. M.M. Verma and on 11.2.1994 he has typed the forwarding letter, which was signed by the Senior Manager Sri M.M. Verma and he proved the same as Ext.-6. 12. P.W.7, is Sanjay Kumar Sinha, the Complainant. He stated that he was unemployed Matriculate and on 30.11.1993, in order to open a wheat and masala grinding Center, he applied for loan of Rs.1,00,,000/- under Jawahar" Rozgar Yojana.He proved his application as Ext.-7. He also submitted that the Project Report is marked as Ext.-8. He stated that the said loan was sanctioned and after sanctioning, the same was sent by the District Officer to the Kishore Ganj Branch of Punjab National Bank and he went to the Manager of Kishore Ganj Branch Sri B. Narain then he asked him to come with Rs. 5,000/- as bribe. Then he gave a written report to CBI office on 9.5 1994, then an Inspector of CBI, Mr. Panigiri met him and enquired about his claim and then he was called on 9.5.1994 with the money. Thereafter, the money was sealed and treated with phenolphthalein powder and memorandum of notes etc. were prepared, which was signed by him. Thereafter, he went with the raiding party and gave the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,500/to the Manager B. Narain, who accepted the same and then it was recovered from him. Thereafter, the money was sealed and treated with phenolphthalein powder and memorandum of notes etc. were prepared, which was signed by him. Thereafter, he went with the raiding party and gave the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,500/to the Manager B. Narain, who accepted the same and then it was recovered from him. Thereafter, a memorandum was prepared and he proved his signatures on all the documents. In the cross-examination, in para-9 this witness has admitted that before 9.5.1994, when the money was recovered from the chamber of the Manager, he had never demanded any bribe in presence of any witness. He has not made any complaint about the demand of bribe to anybody. In para-16 of the cross-examination, he admitted that he has to pay 5% of the margin money in the Bank before taking the loan and since his loan was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-, he had to deposit Rs. 2,500/- as margin money. He also admitted in para-17 of the cross- examination that on the date of occurrence he had nut cleared to the Manager as to whether Rs. 2,500/- was margin money or it was as bribe. 13. P.W. 8 is Prasan Kumar Panigiri, the Inspector CBI, who stated in Court that he is the Investigating Officer of the case. He further stated that he instituted the case on the complaint given to him by Sanjay Kumar Sinha on 13.5.1994 and he was asked by S.P., CBI, Mr. Dundhiyal to ascertain the truth of the allegation. He proved the order of S.P. as Annexure-12 and accordingly, he verified the matter with the complainant after -seeing necessary documents and on 9.5.10994 he filed the verification report. He proved his verification report as Ext.-3. After his verification report, the S.P. directed to get a case registered, then an F.I.R. was lodged by Mr. B.D. Singh, the Inspector and then the complainant was asked to come with the money so that the accused may be arrested handed while taking money. Accordingly, the money was given to the accused Branch Manager and subsequently, the same was recovered from him and then his hands were Washed and the pink water was also kept in the bottle and signatures of witnesses were. taken. Recovery of memorandum was also prepared and he proved all those documents. In cross-examination, he admitted that no seizure list was prepared in the Bank. taken. Recovery of memorandum was also prepared and he proved all those documents. In cross-examination, he admitted that no seizure list was prepared in the Bank. He also admitted that the maximum loan under the scheme could be Rs. 1,00,000/-. He also admitted inpara-35 that there is no witness that in April or before 6.5.1995 Sanjay 'Kumar Sinha has gone to the Bank. He never verified or collected any oral or documentary evidence with regard to his going to the Bank. He also admitted in para-29 that a candidate has to deposit five percent of the margin money i.e. Rs. 5,000/- for Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Bank, then only Rs. 95,000/- is released by the Bank to the loanee. In para-30, he also admitted that on the date of occurrence Sanjay Kumar Sinha has not completed the training and he has not deposited the margin money of Rs. 5,000/- He also admitted in para-32 that he had never heard that any bribe was demanded or there was any talk of bribe between Sanjay Kumar Sinha or accused Manager. He also admitted that he never g6t the statement of the complainant confirmed from any other witness. 14. Thus, after going through the evidences, it appears that it is a case where the complainant-loanee had applied for loan of Rs.1,00,000/- under Jawahar Rozgar Yojana and under the scheme he had applied for the same before the District Authority i.e. before the General Manager, District Industry Department, Ranchi and it appears from the evidence of P.W.5, Krishna Chandra Lal Das that after verification of his application and his project report, which was certified by the Departmental Extension Officer and Task Force• recommending the sanction for the loan, his loan was sanctioned and it was sent to Punjab National Bank, Kishore Ganj Branch. The complainant has admitted in his evidence that when he was examined as P.W. 7 he met the Manager on 6.5.1994 and the accused Manager B. Narain asked him to deposit Rs. 5,000/- and when he told that he cannot arrange Rs. 5,000/and he will deposit Rs. 2,500/- only, then he asked to come with Rs. 2,500/-. Since, he was not ready to give the said money as bribe, he lodged a complaint before the CBI, but in his cross-examination he admitted that the loan amount was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- only and for Rs. 50,000/five percent was Rs. 5,000/and he will deposit Rs. 2,500/- only, then he asked to come with Rs. 2,500/-. Since, he was not ready to give the said money as bribe, he lodged a complaint before the CBI, but in his cross-examination he admitted that the loan amount was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- only and for Rs. 50,000/five percent was Rs. 2,500/- only and naturally therefore he was asked to deposit Rs. 2,500/- only. In his complaint to the police, which is the basis of the F.I.R. Ext.-14, he has clearly written by his own pen that after his loan was sanctioned, the Manager Mr. B. Narain recommended for the training in the District Industry Center and he was taking the training in April, 1994 and when he was about to complete the training, he met the Manager, who asked him to deposit Rs. 5,000/then only the loan amount will be given, which shows that the demand was for the margin money of Rs. 5,000/- which, according to the witnesses, are necessary to be deposited, if he has to take a loan of . Rs. 1,00,000/- and since the loan amount was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-, he was to deposit Rs. 2,500/-. The General Manager, District Industry Center has also stated in his cross-examination at para - 7 that after taking Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 5,000/has to be deposited in the Bank otherwise the loan amount will not be released by the Bank. Admittedly, till sanction the Branch Manager has no hand and there was no question of his demanding any bribe, since the loan was already sanctioned by the Industry Department and as submitted by the General Manager of the District Industry Department, the informant has to deposit Rs. 5,000/- for release of Rs. 1,00,000/- loan, which is also admitted by other witnesses namely I.O. himself, PW. 8, Prasan Kumar Panigiri, who admitted in his cross-examination in para-30 that Sanjay Kumar Sinha has not deposited 5% margin money i.e. Rs. 5,000/-. He has further admitted that he' never properly verified that any bribe was demanded or not. He admitted that even before filing his verification report he never verified that the Branch Manager was demanding the margin money or bribe. Even Sanjay Kumar Sinha has stated that he never stated before the Manager that he has given him the margin money or bribe money. He admitted that even before filing his verification report he never verified that the Branch Manager was demanding the margin money or bribe. Even Sanjay Kumar Sinha has stated that he never stated before the Manager that he has given him the margin money or bribe money. In that view of the matter, I find that the entire prosecution case has been registered in haste. The I.O. P.W. 8 was directed by the S.P. to verify the complaint, but without verification of the complaint only after seeing the sanction order of the Industry Department, he led the trap without verifying as to whether the Manager is demanding the margin money or bribe money and admittedly if a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- is sanctioned, the Manager cannot release the money until and unless Rs. 5,000/- is deposited for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- is deposited for a loan of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant himself admitted that his loan money was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and as such, he was only required to deposit to Rs. 2,500/only and when he went on the date of occurrence to deposit Rs. 2,500/- in the chamber of the Branch Manager at 4 P.M., the transaction of the Bank was closed and the money could not be deposited on the same day and so the Manager thinking it to be margin money, kept the same in his table drawer for depositing the same on the next day and as such, it cannot be said that he accepted the bribe money; In that view of the matter, prosecution case is doubtful and failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The' appellant is given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the all charges. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2002 passed by the 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 13(A) of 1994(R) is set aside. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.