JUDGEMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. The appellant challenges his conviction under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that PW3 Ganga Ram resident of village Kot Madhyar, Sub Tehsil Junga, posted as a Videographer in the police department in District Shimla. The appellant is a Patwari working in Halqua Koti. The allegations against him are that in the month of December, 2000, PW3 Ganga Ram handed over chits (Ext.P-11 and Ext.P-12) to the accused for supply of some . revenue papers, for the purposes of execution of gift deed as also for installation of electricity etc. in his premises. A test report Ext.P-13 was also handed over to the accused along with these papers. He visited the accused about 8 to 10 times during the period of 4 to 5 months requesting him for supply the papers but the appellant refused to perform his duties. Thereafter, he requested PW4-Ramesh Thakur to obtain these revenue papers on his behalf. It is alleged that even he visited the accused 5 to 6 times but the papers were not supplied to him. In the month of May, 2001, again PW4 Ramesh Thkaur visited the office of the accused when he was informed that a sum of Rs.300/- & Rs.400/- were required to be paid to the accused. On 15.5.2001 PW4 Ramesh Thkaur informed PW3 Ganga Ram about this fact. On that day, the accused met the complainant Ganga Ram in Koti Bazar and asked him about the papers but the appellant-accused demanded a sum of Rs.400/- telling him that he will not be available in the office on 16.5.2001 but he should come on 17.5.2001 along with the amount demanded. 3. Thereafter, PW3 Ganga Ram went to the office of the Anti Corruption Zone, Shimla along with PW4 Ramesh Thakur and reported the matter to PW8 Sh.Kahan Singh, Deputy Superintendent Vigilance. First Information Report under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext.PW3/A) was registered. A sum of Rs.400/- in the nature of currency notes of Rs.100/- each was produced by PW3 Ganga Ram. 3. Thereafter, PW3 Ganga Ram went to the office of the Anti Corruption Zone, Shimla along with PW4 Ramesh Thakur and reported the matter to PW8 Sh.Kahan Singh, Deputy Superintendent Vigilance. First Information Report under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext.PW3/A) was registered. A sum of Rs.400/- in the nature of currency notes of Rs.100/- each was produced by PW3 Ganga Ram. The number of currency notes was noted on memo Ext.PW3/B. These currency notes (Ext.P1 to Ext.P4) were treated with phenolphthalein powder and a demonstration given to both PW3 and PW4 when the water turned pink on addition of solution of sodium bicarbonate to the hand wash. It was placed in a small nip Ext.P-5 which was sealed with seal ‘F’ and handed over to PW4 Ramesh Thakur. The treated currency notes were handed over to PW3 Ganga Ram, who was instructed to hand over these currency notes to the accused when demanded. A trap was set up and PW4 was instructed to follow PW3 and stay at a distance so that he could convenient to hear the conversation between the accused and PW3. 4. On 17.5.2001 the raiding party proceeded to Patwarkhana Koti but the accused was not available in the office. On 18.5.2001 the raiding party proceeded to Patwarkhana on the Shimla Chail road. PW3 Ganga Ram went inside the office of accused where Sh. Shakti Chand and PW5 Shobha Ram were sitting. He asked whether the papers were ready and was informed that they were ready and asked the complainant whether his “work” had been done or not. At this, PW3 Ganga Ram handed over the treated currency notes (Ext.P1 to Ext.P4) which the accused put the same in his shirt pocket. On the pre-arranged signal of PW4 Ramesh Thakur, the police party rushed into the room, caught hold of the accused by his arms. PW8 Kahan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police disclosed his identity. A bucket of water, a plate of steel, a jug and glass were brought. Both hands of the accused were also got washed in a plate but the water did not change the colour. Then, solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass and after the solution was added to the hand wash of the accused, the water turned pink. Both hands of the accused were also got washed in a plate but the water did not change the colour. Then, solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass and after the solution was added to the hand wash of the accused, the water turned pink. This solution was poured into a nip (Ext.P6) which was sealed with seal ‘H’ and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW3/C. The accused was then asked to hand over the currency notes which he had received from PW3 Ganga Ram. The accused took out them out of the pocket of his shirt and were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW3/B . His hands were again washed in water and on addition of sodium carbonate the colour turned pink, which was again preserved in nip Ext.P7 and sealed with seal ‘C’. The accused was asked to take off his shirt and his pocket was washed with the water and again the water turned pink. This water was preserved in another nip Ext.P-8 which was sealed with seal ‘H’. His shirt was also sealed, the papers Ext.P16 to Ext.P21 were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW4/B. The appellant was accordingly charged. He denied his involvement in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and has examined one witness in defence. Learned appellate Court, on the evidence on record coupled with the statements made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., convicted him for the offences as alleged. 5. Adverting to the statement made by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the learned court refers to his answer to question No.6 which he admits that PW4 Ramesh Thakur visited his office only once and he prepared the revenue papers on the day next to his visit. The Court then refers to the answer to question No. 23 in the following terms: “Q.No.23.It has further come in the prosecution evidence against you that on the next day i.e. on 18.5.2001, PW3 informed on telephone to PW8 stating that he had talked with you and you had asked him to visit your Patwarkhana at about 11 A.M. What you have to state about it?. Ans. It is correct.” Question No.33 is in the following terms: caught you by the wrist of your left hand, whereas, Davinder constable caught you by the wrist of your right hand. Ans. It is correct. Ans. It is correct.” Question No.33 is in the following terms: caught you by the wrist of your left hand, whereas, Davinder constable caught you by the wrist of your right hand. Ans. It is correct. The police party threatened me and told, you have done illegal act.” 6. Coupled with the other evidence on record, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant is illegal as the offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been established. He submits that the appellant knew the complainant PW3 Ganga Ram, was working in the police department and in these circumstances, the question of making a demand or illegal gratification would not arise at all as it would be per se seal the fate of the appellant. Learned counsel submits that even if the evidence on record is considered in its totality, the demand of bribe not having been established, the appellant cannot be convicted for any offence. Learned counsel urges that the evidence of two witnesses PW3 Ganga Ram and PW4 Ramesh Thakur does not at all establish any demand for bribe having been made. This submission cannot be accepted. 8. Adverting to the evidence of PW3 Ganga Ram, he states in his examination-in-chief that he visited the accused 8 to 10 times during a period of 4 to 5 months and requested him for the supply of revenue papers. Thereafter he requested PW4 Ramesh Thakur to contact him for this purpose. This witness also visited the office of the accused 5 to 6 times with the request to supply the revenue papers but he was told in the month of May, 2001 that unless a sum of Rs.400/- was paid to the appellant, he will not supply the papers. This witness informed the complainant about the factum of demand and when he had also met the accused in the Koti Bazar, asking for the revenue papers, he was told that a sum of Rs.400/- be paid for the preparation of papers/ documents which should be paid to him on 17.5.2001. He states that he visited in his office on 18.5.2001. The accused demanded this money from him by asking him that his work has been done or not. He states that he visited in his office on 18.5.2001. The accused demanded this money from him by asking him that his work has been done or not. I do not find anything in the statement which does not corroborate the charge of the prosecution that the demand for bribe has, in fact, been made. 9. Adverting to the evidence of PW4 Ramesh Thakur, he says that on 18.5.2001, when he was the member of the raiding party, he had heard and seen the accused as well as PW3 Ganga Ram talking to each other. When this witness asked as to whether the papers have been prepared, the accused asked whether his work has been done or not upon which Rs.400/- currency notes was handed over to the accused and he immediately signaled to the police party. They set at rest all doubts as to whether demand has been made by the accused or not. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 450 to urge that the lack of element demand in particular, learned counsel refers to the principles as laid down that unless there is demand, no offence is made out. In this case, the Court held: 23. To constitute an offence under Section 161 of the IPC it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was demand of money and the same was voluntarily accepted by the accused. Similarly, in terms of Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act, the demand and acceptance of the money for doing a favour in discharge of its official duties is sine qua non to the conviction of the accused. 24. In the case of M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala [1996 (11) SCC 720], this Court in somewhat similar circumstances, where the tainted money was kept in the drawer of the accused who denied the same and said that it was put in the drawer without his knowledge, held as under: “ 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. 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 put 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. Unfortunately, on this aspect in the present case we have no other evidence except that of PW-1. Since PW-1’s evidence suffers from infirmities, we sought to find some corroboration but in vain. There is no other witness or any other circumstance which supports the evidence of PW-1 that this tainted money as a bribe was put in the drawer, as directed by the accused. Unless we are satisfied on this aspect, it is difficult to hold that the accused tacitly accepted the illegal gratification or obtained the same within the meaning of Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, particularly when the version of the accused appears to be probable”. 25. Reliance on behalf of the appellant was placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu (supra) where in the facts of the case the Court took the view that mere recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough in absence of substantive evidence for demand and acceptance. The Court held that there was no voluntary acceptance of the money knowing it to be a bribe and giving advantage to the accused of the evidence on record, the Court in para 18 and 20 of the judgment held as under : “18. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1979 (4) SCC 725] this Court took the view that (at SCC p. 727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1979 (4) SCC 725] this Court took the view that (at SCC p. 727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.20. A three-Judge Bench in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.[2001 (1) SCC 691: SCC (Cri) 258] while dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification, observed: (SCC p. 700, para 24) “24. ... we think it is not necessary to deal with the matter in detail because in a recent decision rendered by us the said aspect has been dealt with at length. (Vide Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra [2000 (8) SCC 571]).The following statement made by us in the said decision would be the answer to the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel: (Madhukar case, SCC p. 577, para 12) 12. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted “as motive or reward” for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word “gratification” need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like “gratification or any valuable thing”. So the word “gratification” need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like “gratification or any valuable thing”. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word “gratification” must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it.” In fact, the above principle is no way derivative but is a reiteration of the principle enunciated by this Court in Suraj Mal case (supra), where the Court had held that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of prosecution against the accused in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money. Reference can also be made to the judgment of this Court in Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan [1975 (2) SCC 227], where similar view was taken. 26. The case of C.M. Girish Babu (supra) was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7 of which is in pari materia with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Section 20 of the 1988 Act raises a rebuttable presumption where the public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration, which presumption is absent in the 1947 Act. Despite this, the Court followed the principle that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid would not be sufficient to convict the accused despite presumption and, in fact, acquitted the accused in that case. (Pp.456,45 7 & 458) 10. I do not find that the submission is well founded and the evidence on record rather the witnesses have stated specifically in clear terms that the demand, in fact, was made by the appellant pursuant to which the amount was received. Coupled with the recovery of the currency notes as substantiated by the other witnesses, the water turning pink on each successive occasion when the hands of the accused and his shirt pocket were washed, there is no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences as charged. Coupled with the recovery of the currency notes as substantiated by the other witnesses, the water turning pink on each successive occasion when the hands of the accused and his shirt pocket were washed, there is no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences as charged. 11. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the appellant are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence. **************************************************************************