1. Appellant stands convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Srinagar under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 RFC vide order dated 07.12.1983 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year in both the offences and sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Under these circumstances, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The brief facts of the case may be summarized thus:- One Ahad Shah submitted a written application to the Anti Corruption Organization, alleging therein that accused demanded Rs.50/- for effecting demarcation of his land situated in Tehsil Tangmarg. On this application being received by the Anti Corruption Organization, the investigation in the matter was initiated. Three currency notes, two of the denomination of Rs.20/- each and one of Rs.10/- were produced by the complainant. The notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and demonstration was held in presence of a raiding party headed by Sh. B.N. Wanchu. One independent witness, namely, Ghulam Mohd Rather, Chief Librarian, S.P. College, Srinagar was associated with the investigation. The smeared notes were handed over to the complainant. The raiding party then left for their destination and fixed a signal with the complainant, which would indicate the passing of the bribe to the accused. Personal search of the complainant and other members of the raiding party was conducted at village Hardu Shoora. Raiding party consisted of independent shadow witness and other members of the investigating agency. It was decided that the complainant will approach the accused and hand over the tainted notes to him and on this being done, he will give signal to one of the members of the raiding party, namely, Syed Ullah Sub Inspector. Complainant is stated to have handed over the money to the accused and same was kept by him in the internal pocket by accepting the same by his right hand. On his acceptance, raiding party approached the accused who on seeing them took out the notes from the left hand and threw the same in the 'Saagzar'. The accused hands were washed with solution of sodium carbonate where colour turned pink and notes were recovered from 'Saagzar'. 3. In support of story, prosecution examined PW-Ahad Shah, Ghulam Mohd Chief Librarian, Ghulam Mohd Constable No.1109, Syed Ullah Sub Inspector, Bushan lal, Sub Inspector, Ghulam Nabi Rather Patwari and Badri Nath Wanchu Investigating Officer. The accused hands were washed with solution of sodium carbonate where colour turned pink and notes were recovered from 'Saagzar'. 3. In support of story, prosecution examined PW-Ahad Shah, Ghulam Mohd Chief Librarian, Ghulam Mohd Constable No.1109, Syed Ullah Sub Inspector, Bushan lal, Sub Inspector, Ghulam Nabi Rather Patwari and Badri Nath Wanchu Investigating Officer. 4. PW-A had Shah in his deposition states that bribe was demanded by the accused for effecting demarcation of his land. The money was accepted by the accused at Hardu Shoora by accepting the currency notes with his right hand and putting the same in his internal pocket of his coat. After having accepted the money, he threw the same in the 'Saagzar'. It is admitted by him that there is no independent witness to corroborate the demand made by the accused. What transpires between the accused and the complaint is not known to the members of the raiding party including independent shadow witness. In cross examination he has further stated that his hands were not washed in the office of A.C.O. or afterwards during the entire proceedings. 5. PW-Ghulam Mohd-Chief Librarian states that the complainant met the accused on the road near a Kothar. The other members proceeded ahead without creating any suspicion. He further states that on receiving signal from the complain­ant, the raiding party rushed towards the accused but Inspector Syed Ullah told him that as soon as the accused saw them rushing, the notes were thrown by him in the nearby 'Saagzar'. On the notes being thrown in 'Saagzar' the witness was asked to guard the 'Saagzar'. 6. In cross examination he states that when complainant went to pay the bribe, Syed Ullah was on the mid-way between him and the accused. One other person was also with Syed Ullah. A signal was conveyed to him and his associates by Syed Ullah. The accused and the complainant were not visible to him at that time. He did not hear what transpired between the accused and the complainant. He also came to know that money was thrown in the 'Saagzar' through Inspector Syed Ullah. He did not witness handing over of money to the accused. 7. PW-Ghulam Mohd Constable was accompanied the Syed Ullah and is stated to have seen the accused throwing money in the Saagzar. He also came to know that money was thrown in the 'Saagzar' through Inspector Syed Ullah. He did not witness handing over of money to the accused. 7. PW-Ghulam Mohd Constable was accompanied the Syed Ullah and is stated to have seen the accused throwing money in the Saagzar. He in his statement stated that the money was brought out from his pocket by the accused and thrown in the "Saagzar". He states that the signal was passed on by the complainant to Syed Ullah. For the first time in the Court, he admits that he had seen the complainant paying bribe to the accused. The complainant brought out the bribe money from the interior right pocket of his coat with his left hand. Currency notes were accepted by the accused with his right hand. The witness when confronted with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. admits that he had not stated that he has seen the complainant paying the bribe money to the accused. He admits that Syed Ullah who was ahead of him was in a position to see passing of the bribe money to the accused. The independent witness is also in position to see passing of the money by the com­plainant to the accused. He further states that the money was accepted by the accused in left hand and put it in his left pocket. Both the hands of the accused were washed together. 8. PW-Syed Ullah Inspector has stated that the complainant has passed the signal and he along with Constable and other members of the raiding party proceeded towards the accused who picked something from his pocket and threw it into the neary 'Saagzar' and the money was recovered from the 'Saagzar' and the hands of the accused were also washed. 9. In cross examination he states that conversion between the accused and the complainant was going for about 15 minutes. He was at a distance of 30/40 yards from them. Constable Ghulam Mohd was also with him. The other members of the raiding party were about 10 yards away from him. The complainant and the accused were visible to all the members of the party. He admits that he did not witness passing of the money by the complainant to the accused. Constable Ghulam Mohd was also with him. The other members of the raiding party were about 10 yards away from him. The complainant and the accused were visible to all the members of the party. He admits that he did not witness passing of the money by the complainant to the accused. Even though Ghulam Mohd Bhat who states that the witness Syed Ullah was in better position to see passing of the money to the accused as he was ahead of him. 10. PW- Bhushan lal in his statement also repeated the same story as of Syed Ullah Inspector. 11. PW- B.N. Wanchu in his deposition stated that while the complainant was handing over the money to the accused shadow witness Ghulam Mohd gave signal. The shadow witness stopped the accused and raised his hands while he and other members went towards 'Saagzar' and saw the notes there. He admits that there is no witness to handing over the money by the complainant to the accused. It is admitted by him that he saw the accused throwing the notes in the 'Saagzar'. He states that the accused was asked to raise the hands when he had thrown the notes. He had seen the accused throwing the notes. Ghulam Mohd Constable did not tell him that the accused had kept the notes in his right pocket nor was this question asked from him. Syed Ullah had also not stated before him about the accused keeping the bribe money in his pocket. He admits that during the investigation there was no evidence received about the putting of the bribe money by the accused in his pocket. 12. From the aforementioned statements following things emerge:- (a) That there is no corroborative evidence supporting the contention of the complainant regarding pre and post trap demand; (b) No witness regarding the acceptance of the money by the accused except the complainant; (c) Recovery of the money is from the 'Saagzar and not from the accused; and (d) Pocket of the accused where money is stated to have been kept by the accused was not subject to phenolphthalein powder test. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. There are four factors for providing the trap: (1) demand of money, which can be categorized into two aspects i.e. his initial demand; and demand at the time of trap; (2) the acceptance of the money in pursuance of the aforesaid demand; (3) recovery of money and (4) consideration for demanding such money. 15. Initial demand: There is no corroborative evidence supporting the case of the complainant that the money was demanded by the accused for effecting demarcation of his land. 16. Post trap demand and acceptance: Regarding post trap demand, no pros­ecution witness corroborated the statement of the complainant except Ghulam Mohd Bhat. He has stated that the money was passed on by the complainant to the accused in his absence. However, when confronted with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he admits that he did not witness the handing over of the money by the complainant to the accused. However, it is admitted by all the witnesses that accused did not demanded the money in their presence at the time when trap was laid down by the raiding party. 17. Regarding acceptance of the money what is being stated by two witnesses, namely, Syed Ullah and Ghulam Mohd that the accused was seen throwing the money in the 'Saagzar'. Ghulam Mohd is the only witness who is stated to have deposed in the Court that he saw the accused accepting the money and keeping in his coat pocket. However, when confronted with the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had not mentioned this fact before the Investigating Officer during recording of his statement. He states that he did not think it necessary. Passing of the money to the accused by the complainant has not been witnessed by Syed Ullah as revealed by him in his statement. That means only Ghulam Mohd for the first time stated in the Court that he saw the accused accepting the money and keeping the same in his pocket. He also admits that Syed Ullah Inspector and other members of the raiding party were also in position to witness this fact. However, all other witnesses have stated that they did not see the complainant handing over the money to the accused. He also admits that Syed Ullah Inspector and other members of the raiding party were also in position to witness this fact. However, all other witnesses have stated that they did not see the complainant handing over the money to the accused. Independent witness who is supposed to have accompa­nied the trap has neither seen that the money was passed on to the accused nor any demand made by the accused. He also denied that the accused had thrown the money in the 'Saagzar'. Investigating Officer contradicts both the prosecution witnesses. He also admits that he did not see the accused keeping the money in his pocket. 18. From the aforementioned facts following things emerge:- (a) That there is no corroborative evidence supporting the pre and post trap demand; and (b) That there is no witness regarding the money being accepted by the accused except Sh. Ghulam Mohd Bhat who had deposed for the first time in the Court that the money was accepted. Even though, other witnesses have denied the same. 19. In order to understand the controversy, it is important to understand the import of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Svt. 2006. For facility of reference Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 is reproduced as under:- "4. Presumption where public service accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. 1. Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 or an offence referred to in clause (a) (or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of this Act punishable under sub-section (2) thereof) it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said section 161, or, as the case maybe, without consideration or for a consider­ation which he knows to be inadequate. 2. Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 165-A-d? 2. Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 165-A-d? the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII) (or under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 5 of this Act) it is proved that any gratification other than legal remuneration or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn." 20. The Section 4(1) of the Act raises presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. When the expression, shall be pre­sumed, is employed in Section 4 (1) of the Act, it had the import of compulsion in it. It envisages that the presumption has to be raised once the ingredients of Section 4 are complied with. The prosecution under these circumstances is required to prove by reliable and consistent version of the witnesses that there has been a demand and acceptance of money by the accused. It is mandatory to prove by reliable and consistent version of the witnesses that the money has been accepted by the accused. If this condition is satisfied and the money is recovered from the possession of the accused, it can be presumed that the accused has received the illegal gratification. The burden shifts on the accused to prove that how this money was recovered from his possession. 21. In the present case, the prosecution has miserable failed to prove its case. As discussed herein supra there is no independent witness regarding pre and post trap demand. The same is true about the acceptance of the money by the accused from the complainant. It would be unsafe to place reliance on the statement of the complainant alone. 21. In the present case, the prosecution has miserable failed to prove its case. As discussed herein supra there is no independent witness regarding pre and post trap demand. The same is true about the acceptance of the money by the accused from the complainant. It would be unsafe to place reliance on the statement of the complainant alone. The condition for drawing legal presumption under section 4 of the Act during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted any gratification by reliable and independent witness. In the present case there is no independent witness to the pre and post trap demand. From the bare reading of section 4(1) of the Act, it is manifest that no presumption under this Section is available in respect of the offence defined under Section 5(1) (d) P.C. Act, which is one of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused. As regards the offence under Section 161 RPC is concerned, it can be drawn only when the prosecution is found to have proved "that an accused person has accepted or obtained any gratification". In the present case, money has not been recovered from the accused but from the "Saagzar". It would be pertinent to mention that if prosecution witnesses are to be believed that the money was kept in the pocket and thereafter thrown by the accused, necessary implications would be that pocket of the accused should be subject to phenolphthalein powder test. It is admitted fact that no wash of the pocket has been done. It clearly demolishes the story of the prosecution in its entirety. 22. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 342 RPC stated that he has not demanded the money. He further stated that on the day of occurrence, the complainant took something from his pocket and tried to give it to him and on seeing he thrown it and told that I had not demanded the money. The colour of the solution turned pink on account of complainant touching the fingers of the accused. 23. The only witness who has shown some consistency in respect of the prosecution story is the complainant. Whether reliance can be placed on the sole statement of the complainant to hold the accused guilty. The colour of the solution turned pink on account of complainant touching the fingers of the accused. 23. The only witness who has shown some consistency in respect of the prosecution story is the complainant. Whether reliance can be placed on the sole statement of the complainant to hold the accused guilty. It is a well settled propo­sition of law that evidence of the complainant is no better than accomplice after introduction of Section 165-A RPC. This statement requires corroboration of mate­rial facts from the independent witness. If there is no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the demand for money by the accused, the evidence of the complainant on feat aspect cannot be accepted. On this crucial aspect, it has to be found that the version of the complainant is not corroborated, therefore, the evidence of the complainant on this aspect cannot be relied upon. 24. I am fortified by the view taken in case laws reported in AIR 2004 SC 961, AIR 1979 SC 1191 and 2006 Cri.LJ.1029 and also on the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in Cr. Appeal no.06/1994 titled Charan Dass v. State through Vigilance Organization, Jammu. 25. In AIR 2004 SC 960 , it is held as under:- "When the sub-section deals with legal presumption, it is to be understood as in terrorism i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing for forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former party of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under section 4 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act." 26. In AIR 1979 SC 1191 , it has been held that the evidence of the complainant in no better position than accomplice after introduction of Section 165-A RPC. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act." 26. In AIR 1979 SC 1191 , it has been held that the evidence of the complainant in no better position than accomplice after introduction of Section 165-A RPC. This statement requires corroboration of material facts from the independent witness. If there is no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the demand for money by the accused, the evidence of the complainant on that aspect cannot be accepted. On this crucial aspect, it has to be found that the version of the complain­ant is not corroborated, therefore, the evidence of the complainant on this aspect cannot be relied upon. 27. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in 2006 Cr.L.J.1029 Manohar lal v. State held that there was no evidence of handing over the bribe money to the accused except complainant and shadow witness who was a member of trap party. No independent evidence has been produced from which the corroboration could be found of evidence given by the members of the trap party including the complain­ant. In the present case, even the statement of the shadow witness has not been believed by the trial court. 28. From the above discussion, there is no sufficient material to hold the appellant guilty. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside as a consequence of which the judgment of the trial court shall stand quashed and the accused is acquitted of the charges. His bail bonds are discharged. Disposed of.