JUDGMENT 1. - Since the criminal leave to appeal and the revision petition both arise out of the same impugned judgment, namely judgment dated 30.7.2009, both the cases are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.7.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, ACB, Bikaner, whereby the learned judge has acquitted the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short). 3. The complainant, Devi Lal is equally aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.7.2009 and has challenged the same by filing the revision petition. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.5.2003, the complainant, Devi Lal (PW-3) submitted a complaint (Ex.P-9) before the Anti-Corruption Department wherein he claimed that he used to run a shop in the name and style of Devi General Store at Hanumangarh Junction. However, the store caught fire in the month of October, 2002. He further alleged that two months ago, he had reopened the store. Since he wanted to keep the store open on Sunday, he contacted the accused-respondent, Satyanaravan, who was working, at the relevant time, as a LDC in the Labour Commissioner's Office at Hanumangarh. It was agreed between Devi Lal and Satyanaryan that Devi Lal would give ? 100/- to Satyanarayan, per month, for a period beginning from October 2002 to July 2003- Thus, Satyanarayan was demanding ? 1,000/- by way of illegal gratification. Since Devi Lal did not wish to give the said amount to Satyanarayan, he requested that a trap proceeding be initiated against him. The trap proceeding were carried out on 20.5.2003. The ACB Department lodged a complaint against the accused-respondent. 5. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted a few documents. In defence, the accused examined himself as a witness, and submitted few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 30.7.2009, the learned Judge acquitted the accused-respondent, as aforementioned. Hence, the criminal leave to appeal and the revision petition before this Court. 6. Ms. Chandra Lekha Parihar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The learned judge has ignored the fact that the accused-respondent was caught red-handed with Rs. 600/- which was given by the Department to the complainant. 6. Ms. Chandra Lekha Parihar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The learned judge has ignored the fact that the accused-respondent was caught red-handed with Rs. 600/- which was given by the Department to the complainant. Thus, there is ample evidence to prove the fact that the accused-respondent had sought illegal gratification from the complainant. Hence, the impugned judgment needs to be interfered with. Thus, his contentions need not be reproduced. 7. Mr. Vijay Jain, the learned counsel for the complainant, has echoed the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Dhirendra Singh, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent, has vehemently contended that the prosecution is required to establish three factors before a person can be convicted for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, namely there was a demand for illegal gratification, there was acceptance of illegal gratification, and the person was caught red-handed accepting the bribe for which he could not give any legitimate or cogent explanation. However, in the present case, after analyzing the evidence, the learned Judge has concluded that the elements of demand, acceptance and failure of explanation for the recovered amount is not present in the case. Moreover, the learned Judge has concluded that the defence has forcefully rebutted. the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, the learned judge was justified in acquitting the accused-respondent. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 10. A bare perusal of the testimonies of Devi Lal (PW-3) and of Jayram (PW-4) clearly reveal that both the complainant and his brother are ad Will on the point that after the shop was burned down in October, 2002, they were no longer operating the shop. In fact, according to Devi Lal (PW-3) he was carrying on out his business on a Thaila, (a four wheeled moving platform). Thus, on the date when the alleged demand was made, the shop was not operational. Hence, according to the learned judge there was no work which was pending with the accused-respondent. Moreover, the learned Judge has noticed the fact that according to the complainant, the amount of Rs. 1,000/- was being demanded for the period of ten months, i.e., from October 2002 to July 2003. Hence, according to the learned judge there was no work which was pending with the accused-respondent. Moreover, the learned Judge has noticed the fact that according to the complainant, the amount of Rs. 1,000/- was being demanded for the period of ten months, i.e., from October 2002 to July 2003. However, the trap proceedings were carried out in the month of May namely on 20.5.2003. Thus, the story with regard to the demand of Rs. 1,000/- could not be believed. 11. Secondly, the learned Judge has noticed the fact that there is a contradiction between the testimony of Devi Lal (PW-3) and Jayram (PW-4) and the documents prepared by the ACB. According to Devi Lal Rs. 400/- were given to the accused-respondent on 18.5.2003. The said amount was given to the accused-respondent, the moment they reached the house of the accused- respondent. However, according to Jayram (PW-4), first time when they reached the house of the accused, he was not available. Therefore, they went back to his house to give him. However, their testimony is not corroborated by the documentary evidence. Therefore, the alleged demand of Rs. 400/- has not been believed by the learned Judge. 12. Thirdly, according to the learned Judge, at the time of trap proceeding. when the accused-respondent. was intercepted by the officers of the ACB Department, he had clearly stated that both the complainant and his father had borrowed money from him to the time of Rs. 20,000/-. In order to repay the said amount, they had issued cheques in his favour. However, these cheques have been dishonoured by the bank. Therefore, he had filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the complainant's father. According to the accused-respondent, the amount of Rs. 600/- which was recovered from him was the amount of interest which Devi Lal's father, Vishnu Ram (PW-2) owed to him by way of interest. Therefore, at the time of the trap proceedings, the accused- respondent had given a cogent explanation. Moreover, the explanation was further substantiated by him by producing the complaint made by him under Section 138 of N.I. Act (Ex.D-1) and (Ex.D-2) and the cheques issued by the complainant's father (Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4). Hence, according to the learned Judge, the presumption drawn against the accused-respondent was sufficiently rebutted by him. 13. Moreover, the explanation was further substantiated by him by producing the complaint made by him under Section 138 of N.I. Act (Ex.D-1) and (Ex.D-2) and the cheques issued by the complainant's father (Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4). Hence, according to the learned Judge, the presumption drawn against the accused-respondent was sufficiently rebutted by him. 13. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Judge has given cogent and logical reasons for acquitting the accused- respondent. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal leave to appeal filed by the State and in the revision petition filed by the complainant. 14. Hence, criminal leave to appeal filed by the State and the revision petition filed by the complainant are hereby dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******