Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 219 (CHH)

RAMESH PRASAD AHIRWAR v. STATE OF M. P.

2012-08-29

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal, the appellant assails legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-11-1998 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.9/93, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (In short "the Act") and sentenced to undergo R.I. of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the records of the case, FIR and the judgment of the trial Court is that the complainant-Dharmu, P.W.10 was granted lease for rearing fish in respect of two tanks. He had agree to sell grown fishes of the tank to one Yashoda Kewantin and in connection with that he approached the appellant for grant of permission, upon which, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.200/-. As the complainant was not willing to give bribe, he went to co-villager-Kartik Ram and then it is said that the complaint in EX.P-5 was prepared and submitted in the Vigilance Office at Raipur. Upon receipt of complaint, the Vigilance team prepared for trap by taking currency notes from the complainant which were chemically treated and then kept in his pocket with instructions. Chemical reaction of Sodium Carbonate with Phenolphthaiein Powder was also demonstrated in presence of punch witnesses and the complainant. The aforesaid proceedings were reduced in writing by recording Panchnama, EX.P-6. Further case of the prosecution that after that, the trap party along with the complainant went in search of the appellant, who was found in the market, where the complainant talked to him and handed over bribe money to the appellant, which is said to have been kept by the appellant in his pocket. At this juncture, the trap party arrived at the spot and according to the case of the prosecution, the chemically treated notes were recovered from the pocket of the appellant. Hands of the complainant as also the currency notes were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and it is said that the colour turned pink. The hand wash so collected were kept and sealed in separate bottles. Hands of the complainant as also the currency notes were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and it is said that the colour turned pink. The hand wash so collected were kept and sealed in separate bottles. The currency notes, shirt (wearing apparel) and other sealed bottles were seized vide Ex.P-8. A trap panchnama was prepared in Ex.P-9. Receipt book, Statement and Register were seized vide Ex.P-10. Spot map was prepared by Parwari vide Ex.P-11. Dehati Nalishi was also recorded vide EX.P-12. Lease documents and other receipts were seized vide EX.P-13. The statements were recorded in EX.P-13 & P-14. Another spot map in EX.P-16 was also prepared. FIR Ex.P-17 was registered. Sealed bottles containing hand wash and other solutions were sent for chemical examination vide covering memo dated 2202-1990 (Ex.P-18), in response to which, report in EX.P-19 dated 21-10-1993 of FSL was received Sanction for prosecution was also obtained vide Ex.P18. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. On the basis 9f material contained in the charge sheet the learned trial Court framed charges of commission of offence under Section 7 and 13(1)( d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act on 25-08-1993 against the appellant. The appellant abjured guilt and denied having received any bribe and he was put to trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in addition to submitting number of documents, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses namely B.B. Das, P. W.1, Ku. Yashoda Behra, P.W.2, Retram, P.W.3, A. K. Verma, P.WA, Sudama Ram Bariha, P.W.5, Kartik Ram, P.W.6, Ramakant Shukla, P.W.7, B.I.R. Naidu. P.W.8. Nand Kumar Singh, P.W.9, Dharmu, P.W.10. Gajadhar Prasad Patel, P.W.11 and O.P. Dubey, P. W.12. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing from the evidence of the prosecution. While denying having accepted any bribe, the appellant explained receipt of the amount by stating that the money was towards purchase offish seeds by Dharmu, while he was preparing receipt he was caught hold by the trap party. For the purpose of controverting prosecution witnesses with their case diary statements the appellant placed on record their statements as EX.D-1 to D-4. 5. Relying upon the evidence and rejecting the defence of the appellant the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and ordered sentences as described above. 6. For the purpose of controverting prosecution witnesses with their case diary statements the appellant placed on record their statements as EX.D-1 to D-4. 5. Relying upon the evidence and rejecting the defence of the appellant the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and ordered sentences as described above. 6. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of convicting and order of sentence learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the conviction of the appellant has been ordered, even though the prosecution has utterly failed to prove demand of bribe by the appellant from the complainant. In his submission the story of demand as stated in complaint. Ex.P-5. turned out to be false in view of the categoric and emphatic statement in evidence deposed by the complainant-Dharmu, P.W.10. According to him, Dharmu, P.W.10 has clearly stated that appellant never demanded any bribe nor he at any point of time had decided to lodge any complaint but was taken by Kartik Ram to some of1ice and was asked to put his signature on certain documents which was signed by him. Further submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant-Dharmu has firmly stuck to his evidence, deposed in examination in chief and even during his cross-examination and his entire evidence not only demolishes the story of the prosecution but also warrants drawing an inference by the court that the appellant was victim of conspiracy of false implication. It is next submitted that the independent Panch Witnesses A.K. Verma. P.W.4 and Rmnakant Shukla P.W.7 have not supported the story of the prosecution either with regard to demand or with regard to acceptance of the money as illegal gratification which alone would constitute commission of offence as alleged. The Panch witnesses have only stated that some amount was given by the complainant to the appellant which was later on recovered, which by itself, without proof of demand, would not amount to acceptance of bribe within the meaning of word "acceptance" as occurring in Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. It is also urged that the independent Panch Witnesses have clearly deposed that immediate explanation was offered by the accused-appellant that the amount has been received towards payment of cost of fish seeds. It is also urged that the independent Panch Witnesses have clearly deposed that immediate explanation was offered by the accused-appellant that the amount has been received towards payment of cost of fish seeds. He submits that the complainant-Dharmu P.W 10 has also deposed on similar lines, and therefore, the appellant's defence that the amount was taken by him for some other purposes i.e. towards purchase offish seeds is plausible and probable defence and reasonable explanation in rebuttal of presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988. In his submission where demand itself has not been proved, mere taking of the money, could not be termed as acceptance so as to even draw a presumption that it was accepted towards illegal gratification. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 (Para 5, 16), T. Subramanian Vs. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 (Para 12, 15 to 18) and Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 450 (Para 19, 20, 25 & 26). 7. On the other hand learned State counsel supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and argued that the judgment or conviction is founded on specific finding recorded on minute scrutiny and marshalling of evidence led by the prosecution wherein it has been found that though the complainant-Dharmu - P.W.10 has not supported the story of the prosecution regarding demand, from his complaint Ex.P-5, which independent prosecution witnesses A.K. Verma, P.W. 4 and Ramakant Shukla, P.W. 7 fully endorsed having verified demand is proved. He further submits that the very fact that the appellant talked to the complainant in the market and then money tendered by the complainant was taken and kept by him in the pocket amounts to acceptance of bribe. He submits that the fact that the amount was given by the complainant and taken by the appellant has been eonvincingly proved by reliable evidence led by the prosecution wherein A.K. Verma P.W. 4, Ramakant Shukla, P.W.7. B.I.R. Naidu P.W.8 Nand Kumar Singh P.W.9, Dluumu P.W. 10 and O.P. Dubey P.W.12, who all have deposed that the amount of Rs.200/- was given by the complainant and the same was accepted by the appellant. B.I.R. Naidu P.W.8 Nand Kumar Singh P.W.9, Dluumu P.W. 10 and O.P. Dubey P.W.12, who all have deposed that the amount of Rs.200/- was given by the complainant and the same was accepted by the appellant. Even the appellant has not disputed having accepted the amount therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act would he attracted and it has to be inferred that the amount was accepted as illegal gratification. Learned State counsel further argued that the circumstances, in which the money was received by the appellant clearly amounts to acceptance, and therefore that by itself permits the Court to draw an inference that it was an acceptance pursuant to demand of bribe made by the appellant. 8. In C.K. Damodaran Nair Vs. Govt. of India (1997) 9 SCC 477 the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the word "obtained" used in Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988), and it was held: (SCC p. 483, para 12) 12. "The position will, however, be different so far as an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act is concerned. For such an offence prosecution has to prove that the accused 'obtained' the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant and that too without the aid of the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act as it is available only in respect of offences under Sections 5(1)(a) and (b)and not under Sections 5(1)(c), (d) or (e) of the Act. 'Obtain' means to secure or gain (something) as the result of request or effort (Shorter Oxford Dictionary). In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that context a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act unlike an offence under Section 161 IPC, which, as noticed above, can be, established by proof of either 'acceptance' or 'obtainment'." The legal position is no more resintegra that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be established. "9. In its subsequent decision in the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587 , the Supreme Court examined essential ingredients of Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, as under : 13. "The essential ingredients of Section 7 are: (i) that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant; (ii) that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function. favour or disfavour to any person. 14. Insofar as Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i) that he should have been a public servant; (ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position ~s such public servant, and (iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person." Therefore, the settled legal position and which is no longer res integra is that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be established. The aforesaid well settled legal position has been reiterated in plethora of decisions. Therefore, one of the essential ingredients to prove the offence alleged is demand of bribe by the public servant. 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid well settled legal position with regard to ingredients of commission of offence alleged, I would proceed to examine the evidence on record to find out whether the prosecution has been able to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt. 13. 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid well settled legal position with regard to ingredients of commission of offence alleged, I would proceed to examine the evidence on record to find out whether the prosecution has been able to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Though the prosecution has brought on record the complaint in Ex.P5, said to have been submitted by the complainant, Dharmu, P.W. 10 in the office of Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Raipur, the complainant, Dharmu, P.W. 10 in his examination before the Court has not supported the case of the prosecution, particularly with regard to story of demand and has deposed against the socalled complaint, EX.P-5. As against the contents of the written complaint, the complainant, Dharmu, P.W.10 emphatically stated in para 1 of his examination in chief that he was brought to Raipur by Kartik Ram, without stating any reason, and thereafter, the complainant was taken to some office, where he kept quiet and kartik Ram told him that Rs.200/- is to be given to one person and he was saying that money is to be given to Fishery Officer and it was Kartik Ram, who said that Fishery Officer is demanding bribe. In para 2 of his deposition, he further deposed that Kartik Ram prepared a document, contents of which, he does not know as he is not literate and can only sign. His signatures were obtained and then he was asked to give Rs.200/-, to which, he expressed his inability, and thereafter Kartik Ram took out Rs.200/- and gave it to the officers. He further deposed that he does not know as to what treatment was given to those currency notes and then Rs.200/- were kept in his pocket, to which, he objected as to what was going on. He further deposed that when he proceeded along with the trap party, he was asked to give money to the Fishery Inspector in the market, upon which, he asked as to why such notes are required to be given, to which, officers explained that this money is to be paid towards balance amount of cost of fish seeds payable by Kartik Ram, and he therefore thought that this amount was payable towards payment of fish seeds. Thereafter, when he met the appellant and asked as to whether there is any balance of fish seeds payment, upon receiving positive response, he gave money to the appellant stating that the amount is being given to him on behalf of Kartik Ram and at that stage the appellant took the money. While the appellant was about to give a receipt the officers the trap party caught hold of him. 14. The aforesaid evidence of the complainant to say the least completely demolishes the entire case of the prosecution in so far as story of demand is concerned. There is no whisper in the evidence to even remotely suggest that at any point of time, the appellant had raised any demand from the complainant. The manner in which the complaint was prepared, as deposed by complainant himself shows that the complaint was prepared without his instructions and he did not know what were the contents of complaint. The aforesaid witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and in his examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he has firmly stuck to his version by specifically denying that he had ever gone to the appellant for obtaining permission or any demand of Rs.200/- was made by the appellant. He has emphatically stated that he never told the officers of the Vigilance that the appellant made any demand. He further deposed that only after the appellant was caught it was revealed to him that the others were those relating to trap case in connection with bribe. In para 11 of his deposition, he further denied suggestion that the amount of Rs.200/- was given on demand. In para 12 of his cross-examination he has explained that the amount was given on the understanding that it was payment towards cost of fish seeds and in that sense, the appellant also accepted the amount and while he said that he would be given receipt, the appellant was caught hold by the officers. He has further stated in para 15 of his deposition that no money was ever demanded by the appellant. He has further stated in para 15 of his deposition that no money was ever demanded by the appellant. The other prosecution witnesses A.K. Varma, P.W. 4, Ramakant Shukla, P.W.7, B.I.R. Naidu, P.W. 8, Nand Kumar Singh, P.W. 9 and O.P. Dubey, P.W. 12 have not stated in their evidence that they over heard the conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time of handing over of currency notes to the appellant. Therefore, the evidence available on record dose not lead to proof of demand by the appellant. 15. A perusal of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence shows that the learned trial Court has held the story of demand as proved by way of inference from the fact that an amount of Rs.200/- was given by the complainant and it was accepted and kept in the pocket of the appellant. On proof of the aforesaid fact of giving and taking of money, it has been held that it also proves by way of inference that a demand was raised. This approach of the learned trial Court is wholly illegal and contrary to well settled principles with regard to proof of demand in a bribery case. 16. It is too well settled that mere pr00f of receipt of money by the accused, in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification, is not sufficient to establish guilt. Acceptance of money has to be proved as acceptance of money as illegal gratification. It has, therefore, to precede a demand. Unless there is a demand, mere giving and taking of money would not lead to presumption that the money was accepted as illegal gratification under Section 20 of the Act. The presumption that the money was accepted as illegal gratification arises only when it is first proved that there was a demand. When demand itself is not proved mere giving and taking of money does not give rise to statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act so as to call upon the accused to explain as to how he came in possession of the money. When demand itself is not proved mere giving and taking of money does not give rise to statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act so as to call upon the accused to explain as to how he came in possession of the money. The learned trial Court has completely lost sight of the statutory presumption of the Act and despite having held that the complainant has not supported the prosecution story of demand proceeded to draw an inference which is neither available of facts nor in law that the acceptance of money was towards illegal gratification. 17. In the case of Subhash Parbot Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 5 SCC 86 the aforesaid concept of acceptance was explained by the Supreme Court by referring to the provisions contained in the Act of 1988 as also in the Act of 1947 as below :- 5. "In our view mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13(1)(d)(i). Section 13(1)(d) is as under: "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- (d) if he- (i) by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;" (emphasis supplied) 6. In Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, the legislature has specifically used the word "accepts" or "obtains". As against this, there is departure in the language used in sub-section (1)(d) of Section 13 and it has omitted the word "accepts" and has emphasized the word "obtains". Further, the ingredient of sub-clause (i) is that by corrupt or illegal means, a public servant obtains any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; under sub-clause (ii), he obtains such thing by abusing his position as a public servant; and sub-clause (iii) contemplates that while holding office as a public servant, he obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Therefore for convicting the person under Section 13(1)(d), there must be evidence on record that the accused "obtained" for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. 7. This Court interpreted similar provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in Ram Krishan v. State of Delhi. In the said case, the Court dealt with similar clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 and held that there must be proof that the public servant adopted corrupt or illegal means and thereby obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The Court observed: (SCR p. 188) "In one sense, this is no doubt true but it does not follow that there is no overlapping of offences. We have primarily to look at the language employed and give effect to it. One class of cases might arise when corrupt or illegal means are adopted or pursued by the public servant to gain for himself a pecuniary advantage. The word 'obtains', on which much stress was laid does not eliminate the idea of acceptance of what is given or offered to be given, though it connotes also an element of effort on the part of the receiver. One may accept money that is offered, or solicit payment of a bribe, or extort the bribe by threat or coercion; in each case, he obtains a pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as a public servant." (emphasis supplied) The Court further observed that: (SCR p. 188) "It is enough if by abusing his position as a public servant a man obtains for himself any pecuniary advantage, entirely irrespective of motive or reward for showing favour or disfavour." 8. Similarly, in M.W. Mohiuddin v. State of Maharashtra the Court dealt with Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and after referring to the decision quoted above as well as the dictionary meaning of the word "obtains" observed - whether there was an acceptance of what is given as a bribe and whether there was an effort on the part of the receiver to obtain the pecuniary advantage by way of acceptance of the bribe depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In that case, the Court held that it was proved that the accused made a demand and also got the affirmation from the complainant that he had brought the demanded money and at his instance, the complainant wrapped the money in the handkerchief given by the accused and placed the same on the bag which was brought by the accused and as asked by him; these steps have been taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion that the accused had in fact "obtained" the pecuniary advantage, namely, that he received the illegal gratification. Therefore, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 13(1)(d). Lastly, in C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt. of India this Court considered the word "obtain" used in Section 5(1)(d) and held as under: (SCC p. 483, para 12) "12. The position will, however, be different so far as an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act is concerned. For such an offence prosecution has to prove that the accused 'obtained' the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant and that too without the aid of the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act as it is available only in respect of offences under Section 5(1)(a) and (b) - and not under Sections 5(1)(c), (d) or (e) of the Act. 'Obtain' means to secure or gain (something) as the result of request or effort (Shorter Oxford Dictionary). In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that context a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act unlike an offence under Section 161 IPC, which, as noticed above, can be, established by proof of either 'acceptance' or 'obtainment'." (emphasis supplied) 9. Same is the position of statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act and is available for the offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 and not for clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13." In yet another decision in the case of T. Subramaniam Vs. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court held :- 12. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court held :- 12. "Mere receipt of Rs.200/- by the appellant from PW 1 on 10-7-1987 (admitted by the appellant) will not be sufficient to fasten guilt under Section 5(1)(a) of Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification." ----- xxxx ---- 18. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned trial Court with regard to acceptance of money as illegal gratification is neither deducible from the evidence nor from the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. 19. It appears that the learned trial Court was swayed by the complaint, EX.P-5 and the statement of Panch Witnesses A.K. Verma, P.W.4 and Ramakant Shukla, P.W.7, who stated to have verified the complaint. The learned trial Court misdirected itself in treating the complaint Ex.P-5 as substantive evidence. A former statement would not stand on the face of clear unambiguous and emphatic evidence of the complainant-Dharmu, P.W.10 that no bribe was demanded. The complainant having firmly stuck to his stand in his cross-examination as well there is nothing to even remotely suggest that there was an)' demand. 20. There is another aspect of the matter which renders the conviction of the appellant unsustainable in law. The accused has come out with a very clear defence that the amount, which was taken by him was towards the cost of fish seeds. 21. In the case of Punjab Rao Vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 10 SCC 371 , the accused, a Patwari was on a campaign to collect the loan amount due to the government. The complainant therein was admittedly a debtor to the government. The accused explained that the amount in question was received towards loan. The Supreme Court accepted such explanation, though such explanation was not immediately offered as in this case, but was given only in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., holding thus (SCC P.372 Para 3): 3. "It is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. P.C., holding thus (SCC P.372 Para 3): 3. "It is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability," 10 toe case of Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (1976) 3 SCC 46 , the Supreme Court held that the burden rests on an accused to displace the statutory presumption that is raised under Section 4 (1) of the Act, is not onerous as that cast on the prosecution to prove its case. But such burden has to be discharged, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted, other than as a motive or reward. 22. If the defence of the appellant is examined in the light of aforesaid principles and the evidence and the circumstances of the present case, the explanation offered by the appellant is most probable and plausible. Firstly because both Panch Witnesses A.K. Verma, P.W. 4 & Ramakant Shukla, P.W. 7 have stated that when the appellant was asked with regard to receipt of the amount he offered immediate explanation that it was received towards purchase of fish seeds. 23. Moreover, in the evidence, the complainant-Dharmu. P.W.10 has categorically stated that while giving the amount, the appellant "as under an impression that the amount is being given towards the cost of fish seeds. Thus, the explanation given by the accused is strongly plausible and probable, and therefore viewed from this angle also, mere receiving of money by the appellant from the complainant-Dharmu, P.W.10 would not warrant conclusion that the amount was received by the appellant as bribe. 24. Mere receipt of money divorced from the circumstances, in which, it is paid particularly, in a case, where the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, would not lead to conclusion of guilt. Please see [ (1979) 4 SCC 725 , (2009) 3 SCC 779 , (2010) 4 see 450 & (2009) 6 SCC 587 ]. 25. 24. Mere receipt of money divorced from the circumstances, in which, it is paid particularly, in a case, where the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, would not lead to conclusion of guilt. Please see [ (1979) 4 SCC 725 , (2009) 3 SCC 779 , (2010) 4 see 450 & (2009) 6 SCC 587 ]. 25. In the result the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is unsustainable in law and the same is therefore set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. As the appellant is on bail he need not to surrender. Bail bond stands discharged. The appeal is allowed. Appeal Allowed.