Judgment : 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.19.9.1997 passed in Special Case No.16 of 1992 by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nagpur whereby the respondent/accused Padmakar Dandekar was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w. Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 5(i) (d), 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Heard the submissions at the Bar. 3. Original accused no.2 Manohar G. Meshram had expired during pendency of the Special Case and the case had abated as against him. 4. The facts, briefly stated are thus: That the complainant Javherchand Shankarlal Sonar was serving as an Examiner in the (Inspectorate of Armaments) Directorate of Arms from 2.11.1982. In the year 1982, he was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Kalyan, District Thane. He was convicted by the trial Magistrate. In an appeal in the Sessions Court at Thane, he was acquitted on 12th December, 1985. In view of his conviction by the trial Magistrate, he was under suspension during the period between 4.2.1983 to 16.3.1986. Thereafter, he was reinstated and posted at Nagpur. According to the complainant, he had filed an application on 8.1.1985 in the Nagpur Office for reinstatement and joined duty on 16.3.1986, but he was not paid salary for the period of his suspension. He had made 5 to 6 applications to get his salary during the suspension period. On 12.8.1996, his revised pay was sanctioned by the Bombay Office. Thereafter, he met original accused no.2 namely Manohar Meshram for preparing bills of arrears of his salary. Said Manohar Meshram was working in the Labour section as a clerk and used to prepare bills. Manohar Meshram told the complainant that he will require about one year to get the amount. Manohar Meshram told that one bill of Rs.2025/-is sent to the Account Office. On 10.9.1986 the complainant met Manohar Meshram for preparation of bills for the period of suspension. At that time, Manohar Meshram demanded a sum of Rs.40/-and asked the complainant to meet him on 14.9.1986 in the factory. At that time, a sum of Rs.40/- was paid by the complainant to Manohar. On 10.9.1986 the complainant met Manohar Meshram for preparation of bills for the period of suspension. At that time, Manohar Meshram demanded a sum of Rs.40/-and asked the complainant to meet him on 14.9.1986 in the factory. At that time, a sum of Rs.40/- was paid by the complainant to Manohar. Manohar told the complainant that the bonus bill in the sum of Rs.2025/- and the salary bill in the sum of Rs.37,000/-are to be prepared and therefore, 5 % of the amount which was worked out in the sum of Rs.1950/- be paid to Manohar. According to the complainant, Manohar had reduced the amount to 4 % which worked out in the sum of Rs.1560/-. When complainant told him that he is not having that much amount, Manohar reduced it to Rs.780/- to be paid while bonus bill is passed and the balance amount was to be paid after getting sum of Rs.37000/-. At that time, on 16.9.1986 when both the accused were present and demanded sum of Rs.780/-, the complainant told them that he will make arrangement to pay the amount. Thereafter, since the accused told him that he will not get bill amount unless money demanded is paid, the complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur and lodged a complaint. 5. It appears that the Pre-trap Panchanama according to the procedure was drawn and as planned, the complainant along with panch witnesses went to meet the accused. Padmakar Dandekar (accused no.1) came on a bicycle and talked with the complainant and told him that Manohar Meshram is waiting for him in the canteen. Thereafter, the complainant and Padmakar Dandekar went to the canteen near Security Gate no.3 where Manohar Meshram met them in the canteen. The complainant asked about the delay and Manohar Meshram told him that he will be encashed upto 16.10.1986. According to the complainant, Manohar Meshram asked him to pay the amount stating that both the accused will divide the amount. Thereafter, the complainant handed over money to Manohar Meshram and gave agreed signal to the raiding party. When the raiding party came, Manohar Meshram took out currency note out of his pocket and threw away. The raiding party caught hold of both the accused and seized currency notes. The number of currency notes tallied with the number in the panchanama. Thereafter, the complainant handed over money to Manohar Meshram and gave agreed signal to the raiding party. When the raiding party came, Manohar Meshram took out currency note out of his pocket and threw away. The raiding party caught hold of both the accused and seized currency notes. The number of currency notes tallied with the number in the panchanama. Thus, report was made for registration of offences as well as sanction for prosecution. Thus, both the accused were charge-sheeted. On or about 3.7.1993, since accused no.2 Manohar Meshram died during pendency of the proceedings, the prosecution stood abated as against him pursuant to order dt.26.9.1996 by the trial Court. Thus, the case proceeded against solitary accused Padmakar Dandekar. Padmakar Dandekar denied having committed the offences punishable, as alleged, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 r/w. Sections 161 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The question for determination which arose in the trial Court was whether the prosecution has proved that the accused had demanded bribe/illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing the Official act and whether as a public servant, the accused used corrupt illegal means and misused his Official capacity to obtain pecuniary advantage in the sum of Rs.780/-. 7. Prosecution had examined nine witnesses in support of the case. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution held that no offence was proved against the accused and proceeded to acquit the accused (respondent/accused herein). 8. Mr. S.B. Ahirkar, Special learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the appellant/State made a reference to the ruling in the case of Prakash Anant Pawar and etc. .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 Cri.L.J. 3681 (Bombay High Court) and submitted that even when there is a joint demand and bribe was accepted by one of the accused, presumption ought to be drawn against both the accused. 9. As against this, the learned Advocate Mr. Sirpurkar placed reliance on the ruling in the case of Gopal Singh and Ors. vs. State of M.P. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 407 in order to argue that the judgment and order impugned by the State is reasonable and probable in view of the evidence led on record. The trial Court had given logical and correct findings with regard to various aspects of the prosecution story and therefore, no interference is required. vs. State of M.P. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 407 in order to argue that the judgment and order impugned by the State is reasonable and probable in view of the evidence led on record. The trial Court had given logical and correct findings with regard to various aspects of the prosecution story and therefore, no interference is required. Reference is also made to the ruling in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Rajaram reported in AIR 2003 SC 3601 (1). The learned Advocate for the respondent argued that generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of accused is further strengthened by order of acquittal and therefore, even if two views are possible on the basis of evidence adduced in the case - one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted. Paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. 10. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned Advocate further submitted that there are no compelling and substantial grounds to over turn the judgment of acquittal in the present case since the present respondent/accused was nowhere concerned to the course of his official duty to prepare the salary bills as he was not working in the Account Section and he never demanded any bribe amount from the complainant. He also made a reference to the ruling in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede reported in 2009 ALLMR (Cri) 3127 (S.C.) in order to submit that prosecution is required to prove foundational facts regarding demand of illegal gratification and explanation given by the accused ought to be considered on the touchstone of probability. Regarding the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is submitted that when two views are possible from the evidence on record together with defence explanation if acceptable, one in favour of the accused shall prevail. 11. Mr.Sirpurkar, Adv. also relied on the ruling in the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1979) 4 SCC 526 in order to submit that complainant's evidence is regarded as an evidence of accomplice and it is required to be corroborated in material particulars before it is relied upon. 11. Mr.Sirpurkar, Adv. also relied on the ruling in the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1979) 4 SCC 526 in order to submit that complainant's evidence is regarded as an evidence of accomplice and it is required to be corroborated in material particulars before it is relied upon. When there is grave suspicion regarding complicity of the evidence, it follows that the case is not established beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case also he submitted that there was no corroboration by way of independent evidence to the version of the complainant as against the respondent/accused. Under these circumstances, he prayed for the order of acquittal to be confirmed by this Court. 12. The case against accused Padmakar Dandekar was that, on 16.9.1986, when the complainant had received bonus amount in the sum of Rs.2025/-, the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.780/-. However, respondent/accused Padmakar was not in picture when demand was made by the deceased accused Manohar Meshram on 10.9.1986, 12.9.1986 and 14.9.1986. At that time, the complainant had a talk with deceased accused Manohar Meshram only and not with the present accused Padmakar. Although Padmakar is charged u/s.120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of criminal conspiracy with deceased accused Manohar Meshram, there is no material on record to establish criminal conspiracy between the accused Manohar Meshram and Padmakar. It is true that there cannot be a direct evidence in respect of criminal conspiracy and inference has to be drawn from the facts and circumstances established. However. there is no evidence that Padmakar and deceased accused Manohar Meshram were working in the same section of the Office. Preparation of bill was the work of the Account Section in which deceased accused Manohar Meshram was working. It is the duty of deceased accused Manohar Meshram to prepare bills for payment of arrears of salary. While, during the period between November and December, 1985, present accused Padmakar Dandekar was working in Finance Section which was not at all concerned with preparation or passing of the bills for the amount payable to the complainant. There was no evidence on record to establish that accused Padmakar, in his Official capacity, had any link with the complainant Javherchand. There is no evidence that both the accused met the complainant before 16.9.1986. There was no evidence on record to establish that accused Padmakar, in his Official capacity, had any link with the complainant Javherchand. There is no evidence that both the accused met the complainant before 16.9.1986. According to Orrioyathna Cherian Cheria (PW-3), Finance section had no concern with the passing of bill of Labour Bureau Section. That being so, it cannot be said that Padmakar Dandekar was in any way concerned with preparation or passing of bills for arrears of salary to the complainant because the bill has to be prepared by the deceased accused Manohar Meshram, who had no reason to take help of accused Padmakar Dandekar and share the alleged bribe amount. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Judge observed that mere presence of the present accused with Manohar Meshram on the given date : either on 16.9.1986 or 17.9.1986 is not sufficient evidence without proof of anything said or done by the accused to establish criminal conspiracy between them. There is no evidence to establish that accused Padmakar had either demanded amount or accepted the same so as to impute him with criminal liability for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the absence of direct evidence against accused Padmakar Dandekar that he had met the complainant on 16.9.1986 or went to the house of the complainant to demand bribe in the sum of Rs.780/-, it cannot be said that he committed any offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act or that he had entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused Manohar Meshram. 13. While appreciating the evidence of the complainant, the learned trial Judge doubted his version because it sounds improbable that accused Manohar Meshram will give voluntary explanation to the complainant that he will divide the amount with accused Padmakar Dandekar. The complainant's version, therefore, appears inherently improbable, particularly when there is no evidence that accused Padmakar Dandekar either demanded or accepted the bribe amount. The complainant's version, therefore, appears inherently improbable, particularly when there is no evidence that accused Padmakar Dandekar either demanded or accepted the bribe amount. Looking to the conduct of the complainant that he was convicted of an offence punishable u/s.420 of the Indian Penal Code and was reverted and furthermore that he had filed a complaint against his superior and was suspended and also censured in the departmental proceedings; also looking to the fact that the increments of the complainant were debarred in another matter and he was also exonerated in some departmental proceedings by the Central Tribunal, the learned trial Judge rightly observed that the evidence of such a person ought to be accepted with grain of salt as it is risky to rely upon such evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no reason for accused Padmakar Dandekar nor it was a part of his duty to prepare bill for arrears of salary payable to the complainant. It is difficult to believe that Padmakar demanded bribe amount for such work which he could not have done in the course of his official duty. Thus, in the absence of cogent and clinching evidence to prove guilty of accused Padmakar Dandekar, the learned trial Judge, considering the entire evidence and the ruling cited before him, observed that presumption u/s.4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 would be available only when it is proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any amount. Thus, demand of bribe amount and voluntary payment of the amount and acceptance are sine-qua-non to attract the presumption under the Act. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Judge rightly arrived at a conclusion of acquittal of the respondent/accused herein. Considering that the view of the trial Court is reasonable, probable and sustainable view there would be no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. No compelling or substantial grounds are made out to interfere with the order of acquittal in the present case. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.