JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 120B read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which a further rigorous imprisonment for three months by a judgment dated 14.6.1994 passed in Special Case No. 23 of 1984 by Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna. 2. The case of the Complainant (P.W. 5) is that he was a carriage fitter in the Railway department and he had fallen ill in a certain period of time and he needed unfit certificate from the Doctor of the department who happened to be the Appellant, Dr. S.K. Ghosh. The further allegation is that Dr. S.K. Ghosh demanded an illegal gratification @ Rs. 2/- per day for issuance of such a certificate. Since the Complainant did not want to pay this illegal gratification, he made a complaint to the C.B.I. Patna. This fact was verified on 24.7.1984 by P.W. 10. Thereafter, the case was instituted on 25.7.1984 and a trap team was constituted which arrived at the scene of the occurrence on 27.7.1984 at 10.15 A.M. On the said date, P.W. 5 approached Dr. S.K. Ghosh who then asked him whether he had brought the money and on his reply in the affirmative, he demanded the same and also accepted it whereafter he was sent to the Appellant Pratap Nayak who was a 4th grade employee. When the Complainant approached Appellant Pratap Nayak, he also demanded his share and when he was given a sum of Rs. 8/-, he gave a medical unfit certificate which was required by the Complainant. 3. During trial, the prosecution in all examined fifteen witnesses and examined as many as 44 documents. P.W. 1 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 2 is the witness who proved the sanction whereas P.W. 3, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 are Inspectors of the C.B.I. P.W. 13 is Part Investigating Officer whereas P.W. 14 and 15 are formal witnesses. P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are independent witnesses on the point of alleged demand and recovery. P.W. 5 is the Complainant itself. P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are independent witnesses on the point of alleged demand and recovery. P.W. 5 is the Complainant itself. P.W. 8 and 9 are on relevant to the prosecution case but have been said to a large extent substantiated the plea of the defence. 4. The learned Counsel for the C.B.I. contends that the Court must be strict in cases of corruption and has cited a decision reported in 2000 (1) Supreme Court Case 398 wherein it was held that the burden is on the accused to explain as to how the amount came in his possession. This evidently is not applicable to the present case since the Appellants of the present case have not only discharged duty but even the Complainant has explained as to how the amount came in Complainant has explained as to how the amount came in possession of the Appellants. Similarly, the decision reported in 2011 SC 237 : AIR 2011 SC 23 it has been held that demand for illegal gratification is a sine-qua-non for acceptance of bribe money and one without the other has no meaning which further validates this Courts view in the facts of the case and does not support the prosecution case at all. 5. The defence of the Appellant S.K. Ghosh was that he had demanded the alleged money for the treatment of the children of the Complainant at an earlier point in time whereas the defence of the Appellant Pratap Nayak is that the money was for the sale of T.B. Seal which the Complainant had taken. 6. This Court is aware that in trap cases, the relevant factors which are to be considered are: (i) there was a demand by the accused of "illegal gratification" for performing an act, (ii) there was acceptance of the "illegal gratification" and (iii) recovery of the "illegal money". The subtle difference between "illegal gratification" and money is the point in consideration in this case. 7 The Appellant Dr. S.K. Ghosh accepts that he had demanded the money but it was for a valid cause and not an illegal gratification for doing favour to the Complainant. Similarly, Pratap Nayak also stated that he demanded money which was due for sale of T.B. Seal. 7 The Appellant Dr. S.K. Ghosh accepts that he had demanded the money but it was for a valid cause and not an illegal gratification for doing favour to the Complainant. Similarly, Pratap Nayak also stated that he demanded money which was due for sale of T.B. Seal. In this background if the evidence of P.W. 5 the Complainant is viewed one finds he had conceded that he and his family used to be in treatment of the Appellant Dr. S.K. Ghosh. Further, Complainant himself Appellant Dr. S.K. Ghosh. Further, Complainant himself confirms that in fact, the money which was demanded by the Appellant Dr. S.K. Ghosh was for the earlier treatment meted ofout to the children of the Complainant whereas the money demanded by the Appellant Pratap Nayak was for the T.B. Seal he had taken. 8. Under the circumstances, this Court has no manner of doubt that the money which was demanded and recovered was not "illegal gratification". 9. In view of such, the Appeals are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Special Case No. 23 of 1984 by the Special Judge C.B.I, South Bihar, Patna, is hereby set aside. 10. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.