Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 30 (CHH)

Dariyav Singh Vashishtha v. State of C. G.

2011-01-28

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
JUDGMENT Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24th July, 2001 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Special Criminal Case No. 3/2000, whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court, after holding the Appellant guilty of commission of offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "'the Act of 1988") has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months for each of the offences, directing both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Appellant was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Dondi, District-Durg. The Appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from complainant -Derha Ram for renewal of licence and disposal of notice issued to him, which the complainant did not want to give. Therefore, he submitted a compliant dated 7.12.1998 (Annexure P-19) in the office of Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Raipur. For verification of complaint, a micro tape recorder was given to the complainant and a panchnama in Ex.P-20 was prepared. Complainant was instructed to record conversation. Further case of the prosecution is that on 8.12.1998, complainant met the Appellant and conversation regarding bribe took place. The complainant was asked by the Appellant to bring Rs. 1,000/-. The recorded tape was submitted along with the complaint on 8.12.1998 (Ex.P-9). A transcript in Ex.P-7 was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses and micro cassette was seized vide Ex.P-8. On the basis of the application dated 8.12.1998 (Ex.P-9), first information report, Ex.P-21, was recorded at 0.98 hrs. on 9.12.1998. On 9.12.1998, complainant presented 10 currency notes, each of denomination of Rs. 100/-. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes by Shyam Sunder (P.W.3) and the currency notes were kept in the left pocket of the complainant and he was instructed to give the money on demand and give signal. He was explained regarding the reaction of sodium carbonate solution and phenolphthalein powder and the solution after demonstration was sealed. A preliminary panchnama was prepared in Ex.P-12 and the sealed bottle was seized in Ex.P-10. Thereafter, a team was formed. The Trap Team proceeded for Dondi. He was explained regarding the reaction of sodium carbonate solution and phenolphthalein powder and the solution after demonstration was sealed. A preliminary panchnama was prepared in Ex.P-12 and the sealed bottle was seized in Ex.P-10. Thereafter, a team was formed. The Trap Team proceeded for Dondi. At that time, the Appellant had gone home for lunch. After some time, Appellant came to the Krishi Upaj Mandi (for short "the Mandi") office and thereafter the complainant approached the Appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that the Appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/-, whereafter, the complainant gave the bribed money to the Appellant which was kept by the Appellant in the left pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, upon receipt of signal from the complainant. Trap Team surrounded the Appellant. Pawan Kumar Pathak (P.W.10) prepared sodium carbonate solution, in which, hands of the Appellant were washed, upon which, colour of the solution turned pink. Hands of the complainant Derha Ram were also washed, which also turned pink. The seized currency notes were also dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, which also turned pink. The shirt of the Appellant was also dipped in the solution and the colour turned pink. Sodium carbonate solution was separately sealed vide Ex.P-15. Currency notes were sealed and seized vide Ex.P-14 by J.S. Jangi (P.W.12). Receipt book and diary concerning the case of the complainant were seized vide Ex.P-16. Note sheets, licence registered produced by Secretary-Balram were seized vide Ex.P-1. A panchnama of trap proceedings was prepared in Ex.P-17 at the spot. Seized articles were taken to the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) by constable Tilakram Gakre (P.W.6) under memo of Ex.P-4. Report in Ex.P-6 was received from F.S.L. Thereafter, first information report was lodged in Ex.P-18. Sanction for prosecuting the Appellant was obtained in Ex.P-2. 3. After completion of usual investigation, the prosecution filed charge sheet. On the basis of the material in the charge sheet, charges under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 were framed against the Appellant. The Appellant abjured gilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Vijay Kumar Thakur (P.W.1), Sanjay Kaul (P.W.2), Shyamsunder Rao (P.W.3), Balram Prasad Gupta (P.W.4), Rupram Verma (P.W.5), Tilakram Gakre (P.W.6), Ravikishore Nashine (P.W.7), Sunil Kumar Agre (P.W.8), Dauram Verma (P.W.9). Pawan Kumar Pathak (P.W. 10), Complainant- Derha Ram (P.W.11) and Inspector -J.S. Jangi (P.W.12). 4. The Appellant abjured gilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Vijay Kumar Thakur (P.W.1), Sanjay Kaul (P.W.2), Shyamsunder Rao (P.W.3), Balram Prasad Gupta (P.W.4), Rupram Verma (P.W.5), Tilakram Gakre (P.W.6), Ravikishore Nashine (P.W.7), Sunil Kumar Agre (P.W.8), Dauram Verma (P.W.9). Pawan Kumar Pathak (P.W. 10), Complainant- Derha Ram (P.W.11) and Inspector -J.S. Jangi (P.W.12). 4. The Appellant was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him. In his examination, the Appellant denied all the circumstances and evidence and replied in answer to questions 17, 23 & 29 that he was compelled to put his signature in seizure memo. He further stated that as he had given a report against the complainant-Derha Ram, he has been falsely implicated in a conspiracy. In his defence, the Appellant examined - Hernial Sinha (D.W.1), Sukdev Prasad Tamrakar (D.W.2) and Ramgopal Sunhare (D.W.3). 5. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court found the Appellant guilty of commission of offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and convicted him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that the conviction of the Appellant is unsustainable in law as the evidence of the complainant -Derha Ram (P.W.11) completely demolishes the case of the prosecution. He submitted that neither the demand nor acceptance of illegal gratification was proved by the prosecution. He further submits that the circumstances under which the recovery is made, as stated by the complainant Derha Ram (P.W. 11), the same is wholly inconsequential. Further submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Court below grossly erred in elying upon the transcript (Ex.P-7) even though all the witnesses including panch witnesses have stated that the version, as recorded, was no clear. He submits that in view of the evidence of panch witnesses, no reliance could be placed on Ex.P-7. the transcript, to prove demand by the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also argued that from the very evidence of complainant (P.W. 11), it is proved from prosecution evidence itself that the demand was never made by the Appellant, but it was made by some other person and that currency notes were forcibly thrust into the pocket of the Appellant even though he resisted. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also argued that from the very evidence of complainant (P.W. 11), it is proved from prosecution evidence itself that the demand was never made by the Appellant, but it was made by some other person and that currency notes were forcibly thrust into the pocket of the Appellant even though he resisted. Therefore, it is argued, the entire case of the prosecution becomes highly doubtful and conviction of the Appellant is illegal. It has also been submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Court below, ignoring that the complaint did not support the case of the prosecution, convicted the Appellant. He further submitted that the complaint could not be treated as substantive evidence and is only a formal statement of the complainant, which could be used to corroborate the evidence of the complainant given in the Court or to contradict his evidence. As the evidence of the complainant itself does not prove the demand and the transcript has also not been proved, demand could not be held proved only on the basis of the complaint lodged in the Special Police Establishment. In substance, the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 could not be drawn only on the basis of alleged recovery from the pocket of the Appellant, where the prosecution story of demand and acceptance is not proved. Last submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the complainant had a strong motive for false implication of the Appellant, as he was given a notice and proceedings were drawn against him by the Appellant and the Appellant had submitted a report adverse to the complainant before the Secretary of the Mandi. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the decisions in the case of Narayan Gir v. The State of M.P. 2008 (4) MPHT 189, Arun Kumar Patra v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (4) MPHT 82 (DB), Ramesh There v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 (1) MPHT 408 (DB) and Sanjay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 (2) MPHT 70 (DB). 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent-State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent-State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Counsel for the State argued that when initially, complaint was lodged by the complainant, the same was got verified by giving a micro tape recorder to the complainant. The version between the Appellant and the complainant was recorded and a transcript of the same was prepared alter hearing the conversation in the presence of the punch witnesses, who have clearly admitted to have put their signatures in the transcript. In his submissions, the demand is therefore clearly proved. Next submission of learned Counsel for the Respondent-State is that the complainant- Derha Ram (P.W. 11) has proved in his evidence that when he approached the Appellant in his office, the Appellant demanded the illegal gratification and the same was given to him which he accepted and kept in his pocket. Further submission is that soon after the money was handed over on demand, members of the Trap Team arrived at the spot and all the members of the Trap Team including the complainant have proved that when the hands of the Appellant were washed in sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink. Further, the hands of the complainant also turned pink and the shirt of the Appellant, when dipped in solution, also turned pink. He also submitted that the prosecution proved that when the currency notes which were passed on to the Appellant by the complainant on his demand were subjected to phenolphthalein test, it turned positive as the solution turned pink. Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt, not only demand but also acceptance and recovery of the bribe money from the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the State further argued that the Appellant was holding enquiry against the complainant and the complainant was given notice and therefore, the story that for renewal of licence and disposal of notice, Appellant demanded Rs. 1,000/- appears to be natural. Learned Counsel for the State further argued that the Appellant was holding enquiry against the complainant and the complainant was given notice and therefore, the story that for renewal of licence and disposal of notice, Appellant demanded Rs. 1,000/- appears to be natural. It is lastly submitted that if the evidence on record with regard to demand, acceptance and recovery is examined in its totality and the evidence of prosecution witnesses are examined, the case of illegal gratification is proved and the story of the prosecution could not be disbelieved only on the basis of certain minor contradiction in the testimony of the complainant Derha Ram (P.W. 11), which are not very material. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. Before examining the evidence in this regard, led by the prosecution as well as by the Appellant and examining various circumstances, it would be profitable to take it to consideration the principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence of complainant in a bribery case and the need for corroboration. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed as under: 8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code 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 corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon.... The status of person offering bribe and the caution required while assessing his evidence implicating a Govt, servant was examined by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala 1995(3) SCC 351, wherein, it was held as under: 12. Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe-givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradations. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving the trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from a person who is unwilling, and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges a complaint, then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe-giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is aparticeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of 'accomplices' by reason of their being bribe-givers, in the first instance, the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances. What therefore, emerges from the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court is that the complainant's evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and the Court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration, if necessary, as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case, may vary, having regard to the facts and circumstances. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case, may vary, having regard to the facts and circumstances. Evidence on record led by the prosecution, as also by the defence, therefore, is required to be scrutinized in order to find out as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand, acceptance and recovery. 10. In order to prove demand of illegal gratification by the Appellant, the prosecution has relied upon the complaint Ex.P-19 submitted by the complainant-Derha Ram (P.W. 11) on 7.12.1998 in the office of Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Raipur, tape recorded conversation of which transcript is said to be prepared vide Ex. P-7, complaint (Ex. P-9) submitted in the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, Raipur on 8.12.1998 and the evidence of the complainant-Derha Ram (P.W. 11). 11. In the initial complaint (Ex.P-19) field on 7.12.1998, it has been stated that an application for renewal of licence of that year was submitted to the Appellant and for renewing the licence, the Appellant is demanding Rs. 1,000/-as illegal gratification. The said complaint does not disclose as to on which date and at which place the said demand was made by the Appellant. Vijay Kumar (P.W.I), in his examination, has stated that the renewal of licence is done by the Secretary of the Mandi for which notices are given to the concerned person and through the Secretary, renewal proceedings are drawn by the Mandi. He also deposes that the Appellant had submitted a report against the complainant and 13 other persons stating that these persons are evading Mandi fee by running business without renewing their licence and a notice was issued to the complainant stating that he is indulged in sale and purchase of agricultural produce without renewal of licence since 1995 and thereby evading payment of Mandi fee. After receipt of notice, complainant-Derha Ram (P.W. 11) appeared in the office of the Mandi on 27.10.1998 and demanded 15 days' time to pay necessary charges for renewal and outstanding Mandi fee, but the complainant did not come after 15 days, nor got the licence renewed. He has also stated that if the complainant would have paid the necessary fee, his licence would have been renewed. He has also stated that if the complainant would have paid the necessary fee, his licence would have been renewed. From the evidence of Vijay Kumar (P.W.I), it is clear that the complainant himself was a defaulter and proceedings against him were initiated by issuing a notice on the basis of the report of the Appellant, but the complainant did not pay the due nor got his licence renewed. From the evidence of the aforesaid witness, it is also seen that the complainant had a motive for false implication of the Appellant. The notices were issued to the complainant and the complainant had appeared in the Mandi office on 27.10.1998, but did not} submit fee for renewal nor paid the outstanding dues of Mandi fee within the stipulated period of 15 days nor turned up. 12. Balram Prasad (P.W.4), the then Mandi Secretary, has deposed that the licence of complainant-Derha Ram was renewed for a period up to 30th September. 1997 and thereafter, it was not renewed and complainant was illegally engaged in sale and purchase of paddy, for which, notices were also given to him. He further states that on 27.10.1998, complainant Derha Ram deposited his licence with him and sought 15 days time to pay mandi fee and said that after such payment, he will get his licence renewed. Balram further states that without depositing various fee including licence fee, licence of the complainant could not be renewed. He has also stated that notices were issued to complainant-Derha Ram and 13 other persons, whose names were included in the report (Ex. P 1-B) submitted by the Appellant. He has also stated that the licence is renewed on his recommendation and the job of the Appellant is to make survey and inspection and thereafter submit report and it is not within the jurisdiction of the Appellant to renew the licence. From the evidence of Vijay Kumar (P.W.1) & Balram Prasad (P.W.4), it is proved from the evidence of the prosecution itself that the Appellant had no jurisdiction to renew the licence and his job was to make survey and inspect and submit a report. The Appellant had already submitted his report against the complainant- Derha Ram and 13 other persons, on the basis of which, notices were given to the complainant. The Appellant had already submitted his report against the complainant- Derha Ram and 13 other persons, on the basis of which, notices were given to the complainant. Thereafter, the matter relating to renewal rested with the competent authority i.e. Secretary, therefore, the story of demand as stated in the complaint, particularly that the Appellant had already submitted his report against the complainant, appears to be doubtful. 13. In so far as evidence in the form of tape recorded conversation is concerned, punch witness -Ravikishore Nashine (P. W.7), has stated that though micro cassette was played in his presence, but the tape recorded conversation was neither clear nor audible and transcript was not prepared in his presence. He has further stated that the micro cassette was neither seized in his presence nor any document in that regard was prepared. He has further submitted that no person had submitted any application at that time and he was not given any application for reading on that day. Though, he admits his signature on the transcript version (Ex.P-7) and seizure memo (Ex.P-8), in view of his evidence that the tape recorded version was neither audible nor clear, it is clear that he has not supported the case of the prosecution at least in so far as the contents of the tap recorded conversation are concerned. Punch witness -Sunil Kumar (P.W.8) has also deposed in his testimony that though micro cassette and recorded tape was played, but tape recorded conversation was not clear because there was lot of disturbance. He also states that the transcript was not prepared in his presence. Though he has signed transcript (Ex.P-7), in paragraph -11 of his deposition, he has denied suggestion that the recording of conversation in the tape recorder was clear and audible. Thus both the panch witnesses of preparation of transcript from the tape recorded conversation have not proved the contents of the tape recorded conversation. 14. The Investigating Officer J.S. Jangi (P.W.12) has deposed in paragraph -9 of his deposition that in complaint (Ex.P-9), there was no mention of date on which and the place where the bribe was demanded by the Appellant from the complainant. He submits that when he enquired, the complainant stated that the same was demanded in the Mandi office. 14. The Investigating Officer J.S. Jangi (P.W.12) has deposed in paragraph -9 of his deposition that in complaint (Ex.P-9), there was no mention of date on which and the place where the bribe was demanded by the Appellant from the complainant. He submits that when he enquired, the complainant stated that the same was demanded in the Mandi office. He has also stated that during the course of investigation, he had came to know that the Appellant had no authority to renew the licence and that authority is with the Secretary. He has also deposed that during investigation, he came to know that the complainant was illegally engaged in sale and purchase of paddy without getting his licence renewed for 3 years and he read the notices issued by the Secretary to the complainant in that regard. In paragraph-14 of his deposition, he has clearly stated that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the Appellant regarding demand or acceptance and he neither heard nor saw as to what was stated while giving money. Importantly, he has admitted that the complainant forgot to switch on the tape recorder which was given to him for recording conversation at the time of giving bribe. 15. Complainant Derha Ram (P.W. 11) himself has not at all supported the prosecution story of demand of money by the Appellant. He has stated that the Secretary of Balod Mandi had demanded Rs. 1,000/- for preparation of licence and at that time, the Appellant was also along with the Secretary. He then states that he wanted to get the Appellant caught red-handed, therefore, he had submitted the complaint (Ex.P-19) in the office of Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Raipur. In paragraph-4 of his deposition, he has stated that when he reached the office of Mandi along with the Trap Team, the Appellant was not present and he arrived after half an hour and stated that he will not accept the money, upon which, the complainant told him as the Secretary has stated, the money is being given to the Appellant. He has further stated that he thrust the money in the pocket of the Appellant, after which, the Lokayukt officials arrived and caught hold of the Appellant and the money was taken out from the pocket of the Appellant. He has further stated that he thrust the money in the pocket of the Appellant, after which, the Lokayukt officials arrived and caught hold of the Appellant and the money was taken out from the pocket of the Appellant. In paragraph-6 of his deposition, he states that tape recorded conversation was played before him thrice but he could not recognize the voice and it was not clear. In paragraph 6 & 7 of his deposition, he has stated that he had not paid the renewal fee for 3 years and that he was engaged in sale and purchase of paddy and he knew that this was illegal. The prosecution story of demand of bribe by the Appellant is also demolished from the statement in paragraph-7, wherein, the complainant has stated that he was also given notice by the Secretary and he made an attempt to get the licence prepared, but he could not fulfill the demand. He has then stated that demand was made by the Secretary. He has also stated that he has knowledge that the Appellant is not competent to renew the licence. He then states that he has submitted the complaint against both the Secretary and the Appellant and stated against the Secretary, but the Lokayukt officials got the application prepared according to their own. He further states that when the Secretary had demanded money, the Appellant was also sitting. He has further admitted that the Appellant stated that he will not take the money as this is not his work. On a specific question whether the complainant falsely implicated the Appellant the complainant has stated in paragraph-8 of his deposition that at the time of conversation, the Appellant was also present along with the Secretary, bus at the time of giving the money, he denied to take the same. In paragraph-9 of his deposition, he deposed that what he stated in Lokayukt office was that the Appellant and the secretary were sitting together and Secretary had demanded money and he cannot say why this has not been stated in the statement of Fx.D-1. In paragraph-10 of his deposition, he states that lokayukt officials did not write the complaint as was described by the complainant, but according to their own. His further statement is that he had got a separate application prepared at home which was taken to Lokayukt office. In paragraph-10 of his deposition, he states that lokayukt officials did not write the complaint as was described by the complainant, but according to their own. His further statement is that he had got a separate application prepared at home which was taken to Lokayukt office. but there, the Lokayukt office kept that application and got application prepared according to their own. In paragraph-13 of his testimony, he has demolished the entire case of the prosecution by stating that Lokaykut official did not allow him to read any of the papers and had he been allowed to read those documents. The would have pointed them where it has been wrongly written. Thus, from the entire evidence, which has been discussed above, particularly that of the complainant- Derha Ram (P.W. 11), the case of the prosecution in so far as demand of bribe by the Appellant is concerned is completely demolished, on the contrary, the evidence on record, indicates false implication of the Appellant. 16. In so far as evidence regarding acceptance is concerned, panch witnesses Ravikishore (P.W.7) does not say that the Appellant accepted money from the complainant in their presence or he saw him accepting the money. Both punch witnesses Ravikishore (P.W.7) & Sunil Kumar (P.W.8) also do not say that any amount of money was accepted by the Appellant in their presence. Pawan Kumar (P.W. 10) also does not say that money was accepted by the Appellant in his presence or he witnessed the Appellant accepting any. money from the complainant. He states that after reaching the spot, he was kept sitting in the vehicle and he was told that he would be called as and when necessary and when after some time, he reached the Mandi Office, he saw that Inspector- and Constable Tirki had detained the Appellant. In paragraph-10 of his deposition, he clearly states that he kept sitting outside and what proceedings were drawn inside the office of Mandi is not within his knowledge. 17. The star witness of the prosecution namely the complainant -Derha Ram (P.W. 11) himself has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding acceptance of bribe. I have already discussed hereinabove the evidence of Derha Ram. which shows that there was no demand made by the Appellant, but according to him, demand was made by the Secretary. 17. The star witness of the prosecution namely the complainant -Derha Ram (P.W. 11) himself has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding acceptance of bribe. I have already discussed hereinabove the evidence of Derha Ram. which shows that there was no demand made by the Appellant, but according to him, demand was made by the Secretary. The relevant evidence in paragraph-4 of his cross-examination, has also been discussed, wherein the complainant has stated that the Appellant stated that he will not take the money and the complainant himself thrust the money in his pocket. In paragraph -1 of his cross-examination, he has also deposed that he had given the amount to the Appellant of his own thinking that he is Secretary's man. He has admitted that the Appellant told that he would not take money, whereafter he gave signal to Lokayukt team. In answer to a specific query, he has stated that the Appellant was denying to accept the money. In paragraph - 12 of his testimony, he further states that as the Appellant was denying to accept the money, he switched off the tape recorder. 18. From the evidence of the prosecution, particularly that of the complainant Derha Ram, the entire case of the prosecution with regard to acceptance is also demolished and prosecution has completely failed to prove the demand as well as acceptance. Therefore, the recovery of the currency notes from the pockets of the Appellant are not by itself sufficient to convict the Appellant, as such recovery is of no consequence. Derha Ram (P.W.11) himself states in paragraph -4 of his deposition that after he kept the money in the pocket of the Appellant, Lokayukt officials arrived at the spot and caught hold of the Appellant from his wrist, thereafter, the Appellant took out the money from his pocket. Therefore, under these circumstances, the phenolphthalein test is also inconsequential and that by itself is not sufficient to hold the Appellant guilty of commission of offence alleged against him. 19. In the case of V. Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of police. Therefore, under these circumstances, the phenolphthalein test is also inconsequential and that by itself is not sufficient to hold the Appellant guilty of commission of offence alleged against him. 19. In the case of V. Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of police. A.P. (2006) 13 SCC 305, it has been held that in order to prove the charges under Section 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove that the accused made any demand of bribe and the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that the accused has accepted the money towards bribe cannot be drawn unless and until it is proved that there was some motive or reward for which the demand of bribe was made and the demand of bribe is proved. In the case of T. Sabramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401, it has been held that mere proof of receipt of money by the accused in absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification would not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. In the case of Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1975) 2 SCC 227, the Supreme Court held that when story of demand of bribe by the accused Appellant from the complainant was not proved and even story of demand of money by the complainant was not established beyond reasonable doubt, the rule of presumption that the money was accepted as bribe could not be resorted in order to convict the accused. In the case of Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 1408, it has been held that in case of bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid, it would not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case, is not reliable. In Jagdish Chandra Makhija v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1990 MPLJ 239, it has been held that in a trap case when initial part of the story of demand and offer is found to be untrustworthy, testimony of the complainant cannot be accepted. 20. In Jagdish Chandra Makhija v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1990 MPLJ 239, it has been held that in a trap case when initial part of the story of demand and offer is found to be untrustworthy, testimony of the complainant cannot be accepted. 20. In the case of A. Subair v. State of Kerala 2009 (3) Crimes 1 (SC), it has been held that: The legal position is no more res Integra that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing of pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be established. Mere recovery of currency notes (Rs. 20/- and Rs. 5/-) denomination, in the facts of the present case, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe. When the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. 21. In the final analysis, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24th July, 2001 passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. The same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 22. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the Appellant is acquitted of the charges. As the Appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. Bail bonds stand discharged.