JUDGMENT By Court.— Both the criminal appeals since arising out of the same judgment were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appellants, Anil Kumar singh and Michael Kerketta, functioning as Branch Manager and Cashier respectively at State Bank of India, Bingaon Branch, Ranchi, were put on trial for commission of the offence under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. Learned Special Judge having found them guilty for the offences under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment one month. 3. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the FIR as well as pre trap memorandum (Ext. 10) and post trap memorandum (Ex. 11), is that one Anirudh Singh PW 5, the complainant, had applied for loan under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi for purchasing Auto Rickshaw. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi forwarded the said application (Ext. 3) of the complainant vide his forwarding Letter No.2758 dated 18.10.2003 (Ext. 3/1) to the State Bank of India at Bingaon Branch, Ranchi for sectioning loan. On receiving the said letter, appellant-Anil Kumar Singh intimated the complainant to deposit margin money of Rs. 19,302/- in his account which he deposited. On despositing the complainant approached appellant-Anil Kumar Singh to release the amount which has been sanctioned but appellant-Anil Kumar Singh asked for Rs. 10,000/- for releasing the amount. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount, appellant-Anil Kumar Singh asked him to pay Rs. 6,000/- immediately and rest of money after two or three days. Thereafter complainant-Anirudh Singh, PW 5, made written complaint to the effect as aforesaid before the S.P. CBI, Ranchi on 19.11.2003. On receiving the said written complaint, S.P., CBI, Ranchi directed Mukesh Kumar Verma, Sub-Inspector, CBI to verify the allegation who on making verification found the allegation to be true and submitted verification report (Ext. 13) to the S. P. CBI, Ranchi. Thereupon, FIR was lodged. On receiving the said written complaint, S.P., CBI, Ranchi directed Mukesh Kumar Verma, Sub-Inspector, CBI to verify the allegation who on making verification found the allegation to be true and submitted verification report (Ext. 13) to the S. P. CBI, Ranchi. Thereupon, FIR was lodged. Thereupon, S.P. CBI, Ranchi constituted a team on 19.11.2003 consisting of S.K. Sinha, Inspector, Vikash Chandra Chourasia. Inspector (PW 11), Ajay Singh Solanki, Inspector (PW 13), Mukesh Kumar Verma Sub-Inspector (PW 15), Sujit Kumar Jha, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Vijay Kishore Singh, All constables under the leadership of K.K. Singh, Inspector I.O. (PW 14) for laying trap. Two independent witnesses namely, Nand Kishore Ram (PW 6) Enforcing Officer and Tapan Kumar Das (PW 10) Sectional Supervisor of the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner, were arranged. Thereafter a pre-trap memorandum (Ext. 10) was drawn after explaining the characteristic of phenolphthalein powder and its use in the trap. Currency notes amounting to Rs. 6,000/- of the denomination of Rs. 100/- produced by the complainant were treated with the phenolphthalein powder and were given back to the complainant. PW 6 was asked to accompany the complainant-PW 5 to the office of appellant-Anil Kumar Singh. Thereafter, trap team left the CBI office and proceeded to bank where they reached at 10.05 hours and the members of the trap team took their positions suitably outside the back premises. The complainant PW 5 was asked to go along with Nand Kishore Ram PW 6 and contact appellant-Anil Kumar Singh. The complainant PW 5 came to appellant Anil Kumar Singh and when he wished him, appellant-Anil Kumar Singh asked the complainant PW 5 as to whether he has come with the money. The complainant-PW 5 replied in affirmative. Then appellant-Anil Kumar Singh asked the complainant PW 5 to meet the cashier-Michael Kerketta (other appellant). The complainant-PW 5 came before him and told him that Manager Saheb has directed him to give money to you for releasing the loan amount. Since many people were there is the counter, appellant-Michael kerketta asked him to wait. After a while appellant-Michael Kerketta came out of his cabin and asked the complainant-PW 5, to come along with him. They after leaving the promises of the bank came to road leading to Bingaon village. Shadow witness-Nand Kishore Ram (PW 6) also followed them but he had kept distance from them. Members of the trap team namely. After a while appellant-Michael Kerketta came out of his cabin and asked the complainant-PW 5, to come along with him. They after leaving the promises of the bank came to road leading to Bingaon village. Shadow witness-Nand Kishore Ram (PW 6) also followed them but he had kept distance from them. Members of the trap team namely. V.C. Chourasia, PW 11 and Ajay Singh Solanki, PW 13, also followed them but they had maintained distance from them. When appellant/Michael Kerketta came to Bingaon village road, he demanded money from the complainant PW 5 and then complainant-PW 5 took out tainted money worth Rs. 6,000/- and handed over it to appellant-Michael Kerketta who accepted the money by extending his right hand and counted it and then kept it in his inner ticket pocket of his trousers. After accepting money appellant-Michael Kerketta assured the complainant that his work will be done. Immediately, thereafter the complainant gave signal to the other members of the trap team who having seen the signal reached there. The IO-PW 14 challenged appellant-Michael Kerketta who became quite nervous and said that his share is only to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- and rest is for appellant-Anil Kumar Singh. Thereupon cash of Rs. 6,000/- (Ext. VII/59) was recovered. Thereafter hand wash of appellant-Michael Kerketta and also wash of pocket of the trousers was taken which on treatment got pink. Upon all the formalities being completed post trap memorandum (Ext. 11) was prepared. Thereafter I.O. PW 14 seized the documents relating to loan from the Almirah of appellant Anil Kumar Singh and prepared recovery memorandum. 4. On completion of investigation and on procuring order sanctioning prosecution (Ext. 2) against appellant -Anil Kumar Singh which was proved by PW 2 as also sanction for prosecution (Ex. 1) against appellant-Michael Kerketta which was proved by PW 1, charge-sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against both the appellants. 5. In course of time, the appellants were put on trial, during which the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Of them, PW 5, Anirudh Singh, the complainant, has turned hostile as he did not support the case as had been made out in his written report. submitted before the S.P., CBI alleging therein that appellant-Anil Kumar Singh had asked for bribe for sanctioning loan in his favour. Of them, PW 5, Anirudh Singh, the complainant, has turned hostile as he did not support the case as had been made out in his written report. submitted before the S.P., CBI alleging therein that appellant-Anil Kumar Singh had asked for bribe for sanctioning loan in his favour. However, the persecution did draw his attention towards the fad recorded in the pre and post trap memorandum. PW 6 Nand Kishore Ram, shadow witness, as well a PW 10-Tapan Kumar Das, an independent witness, who Were the members of the trap team, have turned hostile, whereas PW 11- Vikash Chandra Chourasia and PW 13 – Ajay Singh Solanki, both members of the trap team, are the witnesses on the point of recovery of the tainted money from the possession of appellant-Michael Kerketta. 6. The learned trial Court though did record that there is no acceptance and recovery from the person of Anil Kumar Singh whereas tainted money was recovered from the possession of appellant-Michael Kerketta but no evidence is there against him of making any demand of bribe but recorded the order of conviction and sentence against both the appellants after holding that the prosecution has been able to prove the factum of recovery of tainted money from appellant-Michael Kerketta which finds corroboration from some part of the evidences of the hostile witnesses PWs 5, 6 and 10. Perhaps the Court seems to have recorded about the factum of corroboration by PW 5 to the fact of recovery on the ground that the witnesses mainly PW 5 in his cross-examination has accepted the facts recorded in the post trap memorandum that when he came with the money and approached appellant - Anil Kumar Singh, he asked to contact appellant-Michael Kerketta who when accepted the money was trapped and the money was recovered. On the aforesaid ground the order of conviction and sentence was passed which is under challenge. 7. Mr. On the aforesaid ground the order of conviction and sentence was passed which is under challenge. 7. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant - Anil Kumar Singh, submits that admittedly neither the complainant-PW 5 nor the shadow witness-PW 6 nor the independent witness PW 10 has supported the case of the prosecution regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money, still the trial Court convicted the appellant- Anil Kumar Singh on the basis of the evidences of PWs 11, 13 and 14-Investigating Officer who were examined mainly on the point of recovery of the tainted money from the possession of appellant-Michael Kerketta but the recovery of the tainted money itself cannot be a ground for conviction. Learned senior counsel in support of his submission referred to decisions rendered in the cases of C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC 779 : AIR 2009 SC 2022 , State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 , and Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 1408 . Learned counsel further submits that there has been absolutely no legal evidence of demand of illegal gratification or its acceptance by appellant-Anil Kumar Singh or recovery of tainted money from the possession of appellant still the trial Court has recorded the order of conviction and sentence which itself is quite illegal and hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-Mecheal Kerteketta would submit that it was never the case of prosecution right from beginning that appellant-Michael Kerketta had ever asked for illegal gratification or releasing the amount of loan in favour of the complainant rather this allegation was against the appellant-Anil Kumar Singh but the prosecution failed to adduce the evidence in this regard. Since no such case of demand of gratification was there against appellant-Michael Kerketta, he cannot be held guilty for the charges even if certain account is said to have been recovered from his possession as demand of illegal gratification. its acceptance as well as its recovery is singe qua non for constituting offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be quashed in the case of appellant-Michael Kerketta. 9. As against this, Mr. its acceptance as well as its recovery is singe qua non for constituting offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be quashed in the case of appellant-Michael Kerketta. 9. As against this, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, submits that it is true that the complainant is his evidence has not supported his earlier version which had been made in the written complaint that Anil Kumar Singh had asked for illegal gratification for releasing the amount of loan and when the complainant-PW 5 came to him to give money, he asked the complainant to pay it to appellant-Michael Kerketta who accepted it but in the cross-examination the prosecution has been able to elicit from the witness by drawing his attention to his earlier statement as recorded in pre and post trap memorandum that appellant-Anil Kumar Singh had asked for illegal gratification which at his instance was paid to appellant-Michael Kerketta who accepted and thereupon tainted money was recovered. The recovery of the tainted money gets fully established from the evidences of PWs 11, 13 and 14. Under the circumstances, the Court did not commit any illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence against both the appellants. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record. it does appear that it was the case of the prosecution that when the amount of loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant-PW 5 for purchasing Auto Rickshaw under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna, the complainant approached appellant-Anil Kumar Singh for release of the amount but appellant-Anil Kumar Singh asked him to pay Rs. 6,000/- as illegal gratification for release of the amount sanctioned. Thereupon, the complainant submitted a written complaint before the SP, CBI, Ranchi who got the allegation verified. Upon finding the allegation to be true, FIR was lodged and a team was constituted for laying hap. In that pursuit, the complainant as per instruction of the Investigating Officer-PW 14 approached appellant-Anil Kumar Singh along with shadow witness-PW 6. On being approached, appellant-Anil Kumar Singh asked the complainant as to whether he has brought the money. When answer was given in affirmative, he asked the complainant to meet appellant-Michael Kerketta. In that pursuit, the complainant as per instruction of the Investigating Officer-PW 14 approached appellant-Anil Kumar Singh along with shadow witness-PW 6. On being approached, appellant-Anil Kumar Singh asked the complainant as to whether he has brought the money. When answer was given in affirmative, he asked the complainant to meet appellant-Michael Kerketta. Accordingly, complainant met appellant-Michael Kerketta who took the complainant outside the bank premises where he accepted the money. As soon as he accepted the amount of bribe, he was trapped by the members of the trap team. On such allegation, both the appellants were put on trial. During trial, the complainant did not support his earlier version. The complainant-PW 5 in his evidence did not say a single word against the appellant-Anil Kumar Singh regarding either demand of illegal gratification being made by appellant- Anil Kumar Singh or its acceptance. However, on being declared hostile by the prosecution, the prosecution was allowed to cross-examine him, thereafter attention was drawn towards his earlier statements made during the stage of pre trap or post trap. On attention being drawn, he accepted that he had made statement regarding demand being made by appellant-Anil Kumar Singh as also about the acceptance of the amount of illegal gratification by appellant-Michael Kerketta and its recovery. However, Nand Kishore Ram-PW 6, shadow witness, did not say anything in this respect. He has also been declared hostile. The same is the case with Tapan Kumar Das-PW 10 who has also been declared hostile when he did support his earlier version. However, PWs 11 and 13, members of trap team, in their evidences did support the case of the prosecution regarding tainted money being recovered from the possession of appellant-Michael Kerketta. In such situation, the trial Court did hold that the versions of PWs 11 and 13 as also of the Investigating Officer PW 14 get support from the evidence of PW 5-complainant which has been elicited by the prosecution in his cross-examination though no evidence of acceptance of tainted money and its recovery is there from appellant-Anil Kumar Singh nor it is there that appellant-Michael Kerketta demanded for illegal gratification. 11. Thus, the question does arise as to whether the trial Court in such situation was justified in recording order of conviction and sentence against the appellants. 12. 11. Thus, the question does arise as to whether the trial Court in such situation was justified in recording order of conviction and sentence against the appellants. 12. In the case of hostile witness, the Court can permit his examination-in-chief to be conducted in the manner of cross-examination to the extent to which he considered necessary in the interest of justice. The purpose of cross-examination of a witness is to discredit him but at the same time, it is hard truth that another equally important object of cross-examination is to elicit admissions of facts which would help build the case of the cross-examiner. When a party with the leave of the Court, confronts his witness with his previous inconsistent statement, he does so in the hope that the witness might revert to what he had stated previously. If the departure from the prior statement is not deliberate but is due to faulty memory or a like cause, there is every possibility of the witness veering round to his former statement. Thus, showing faultiness of the memory in the case of such a witness would be another object of cross-examining and contradicting him by a party calling the witness. In short, the rule prohibiting a party to put questions in the manner of cross-examination or in a leading form to his own witness is relaxed not because the witness has already forfeited all right to credit but because from his antipathetic attitude or otherwise, the Court feels that for doing justice, his evidence be more fully given, the truth more effectively extricated and his credit more adequately tested by questions put in a more pointed, penetrating and searching way. 13. Thus, the question does arise as to whether a previous inconsistent statement could be proved against the hostile witness. 14. The same question, fell for consideration in a case of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 , wherein their Lordships after taking into account several decisions and dwelling with purpose of allowing a party to cross-examine his own witness did hold as under :- "Nor was the High Court competent to use the statements of these witnesses recorded by the police during investigation, for seeking assurance for the prosecution story. Such use of the police statements is not permissible. Such use of the police statements is not permissible. Under the Proviso to Section 162, Cr PC such statements can be used only for the purpose of contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner indicated in Section 145, Evidence Act, and for no other purpose. They cannot be used for the purpose of seeking corroboration or assurance for the testimony of the witness in Court." In the event of such settled principle of law that earlier statement of a hostile witness can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and not for the purpose of corroboration, it is to be considered as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against the appellants. 15. I have already noted that PW 5 complainant when did not say anything either with respect to demand or acceptance of the amount of illegal gratification, he was allowed by the Court to be cross-examined. Only then he accepts that in his previous statement recorded under pre trap memorandum and post trap memorandum, he had made statement about the demand being made of illegal gratification by appellant-Anil Kumar Singh and at his instance the amount was accepted by appellant - Michael Kerketta from whose possession tainted money was recovered, but this statement as I have said earlier cannot be used for any other purpose than for the purpose of contradiction and hence it cannot assume the characteristics of legal evidence. Furthermore, none of the witnesses either PWs 11, 13 or PW 14 has deposed anything about the illegal demand being made by appellant-Anil Kumar Singh or even of its acceptance by him. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to have established the charges under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the law on this issue is well settled that the demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable unless there is evidence to prove the payment of bribe or to show, that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt in absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. 16. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt in absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. 16. Thus, none of the ingredients gets fulfilled for constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so far as appellant-Anil Kumar Singh is concerned. 17. So far appellant-Michael Kerketta is concerned, substantive evidence is there to show that the tainted money was recovered from his possession. Further, from the evidences of PWs 11 and 14 it does appear that after the money was accepted, he was challenged by the members of trap team and during that course, appellant-Michael Kerketta accepted that he does have a share of Rs. 1,000/- only but again in his case also, there appears to be absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification as it was never the case of the prosecution right from beginning that, this appellant had put forth any demand nor there has been any evidence that he had asked for bribe for appellant-Anil Kumar Singh. It is not the case of the prosecution that this appellant was concerned with the matter relating to release of the amount of sanctioned loan. Had there been any evidence that this appellant had accepted the mount on behalf of appellant-Anil Kumar Singh who had asked for illegal gratification, the matter would have been quite different. Thus, even accepting the case of the prosecution that the tainted money was recovered from the possession of appellant- Michael Kerketta, it would not be sufficient to hold him guilty for the charges as there appears to be absolutely no evidence that he had ever put forth demand of bribe and that, money which he accepted was bribe money. 18. Under the circumstances, the trial Court seems to have committed illegality in holding the appellants guilty for the charges levelled against them. 19. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 20. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Appeals allowed.