Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 102 (CHH)

RAJJAK MIYAN v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-03-12

RADHE SHYAM SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 24-8-2004 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988'), Durg in Special Case No.4/2002. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Rajjak Miyan has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences / concurrently: Conviction Sentence Under Section 7 of the Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay Act, 1988 fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months Under Section 13(1)(d) Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay read with Section 13(2) fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine; of the Act, 1988 to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Accused/appellant Rajjak Miyan was a Patwari of Village Aheri, Patwari Halka No.26, District Durg. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) was resident of Village Birebhat. He made written complaint (Ex.P-5) in Lokayukta Office, Raipur. In Ex.P-5, it is mentioned that sister of complainant Fattulal (PW-3) had died. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) met with the appellant for mutation of his name in revenue record in place of name of his sister. The appellant demanded, Rs. 700/- from complainant Fattulal (PW-3) therefor. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) gave him Rs.300/-. Even thereafter, the appellant did not mutate the name of complainant Fattulal (PW-3) in the revenue record and he also did not return his Rin-Fustika. Therefore, complainant Fattulal (PW-3) made written complaint (Ex.P-5) in Lokayukta Office, Raipur. On the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P-5), First Information Report (Ex.P-18) was recorded in Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Raipur. Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta Office, Raipur forwarded the complaint (Ex.P-5) to Inspector Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7) for taking necessary action. Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7) called two panch witnesses Mine Inspector Rajesh Malve (PW-4) and Food Inspector Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6). They were introduced with complainant Fattulal (PW-3). They inquired about the complaint (Ex.P-5) from complainant Fattulal (PW-3). Thereafter, a pre-trap demonstration was arranged, wherein a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass. On dipping of a piece of plain paper in the solution, colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, another piece of paper smeared with phenolphthalein powder was dipped in the said solution, colour of the solution turned pink. Thereafter, a pre-trap demonstration was arranged, wherein a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass. On dipping of a piece of plain paper in the solution, colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, another piece of paper smeared with phenolphthalein powder was dipped in the said solution, colour of the solution turned pink. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) was asked to present currency notes of Rs.400/-. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) submitted 4 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Numbers of the currency notes were recorded in pre-trap panchnama (Ex.P-6). After submission of the currency notes, phenolphthalein powder was smeared thereon and the notes were kept in pocket of complainant Fattulal (PW-3). Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) was instructed and guided as to how the trap would be arranged and as to the role which they will play in the trap proceeding. Trap-team proceeded for Village Aheri. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) and Dilip Narange (PW-5) were sent to the office of the appellant and other members of the trap-team surrounded the office of the appellant. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) gave the currency notes of Rs.400/- (each in the denomination of Rs. 100/-) to the appellant. After sometime, complainant Fattulal (PW-3) came out of the office of the appellant and transmitted the signal as already instructed to him. Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7), Rajesh Malve (PW-4), Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6) and Inspector Rakesh Bhatt entered the office of the appellant and caught both hands of the appellant. The trap-team seized the currency notes from the drawer of the table of the appellant. Numbers of the currency notes seized from the drawer of the table of the appellant were compared with the numbers mentioned in pre-trap panchnama (Ex.P-6). A solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and fingers of both the hands of the appellant were dipped therein, colour of the solution turned pink. Thereafter, the solution was kept in a bottle and sealed. Another solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which seized currency notes were dipped, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in another bottle and sealed. Another solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which fingers of complainant Fattulal (PW-3) were dipped, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in another bottle and sealed. Rin-Pustika was seized vide Ex.P-7 and currency notes of Rs.400/- were seized vide Ex.P-13. The solution was kept in another bottle and sealed. Another solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which fingers of complainant Fattulal (PW-3) were dipped, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in another bottle and sealed. Rin-Pustika was seized vide Ex.P-7 and currency notes of Rs.400/- were seized vide Ex.P-13. The bottles containing the solutions were also seized vide Ex.P-4. Site-map was prepared vide Ex.P-10. Consent-Deed (Ex.P-16) was also seized. Regular First Information Report (Ex.P-22) was recorded in the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Raipur. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar vide Ex.P-1. Report (Ex.P-2) was received therefrom. Test of phenolphthalein was found positive. After completion of the investigation, sanction for prosecution was obtained against the accused/appellant vide Ex.P-23 and charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Act, 1988, Durg. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused/appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 3. Shri Arjun Yadav and Shri Arvind Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by a reliable and cogent evidence. It is necessary for the prosecution to satisfy and establish that all the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 have been made out before convicting the accused/appellant. Therefore, the prosecution did not succeed in proving the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988. Learned counsel further submitted that even if a presumption is drawn as per Section 20 of the Act, 1988, the accused/appellant has established his case that he did not accept any illegal gratification. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions. Evidence of complainant Fattulal (PW-3) and Dilip Narange (PW-5) are not reliable. The said currency notes were not recovered from the possession of the appellant. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge is perverse and illegal. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellant deserves acquittal. Learned counsel placed reliance on Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat 2002 Cri.L.J. 2787, Ramraj Prasad Karsoliya Vs. State of M.P. 2002(2) MPLJ 21 , Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke Vs. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellant deserves acquittal. Learned counsel placed reliance on Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat 2002 Cri.L.J. 2787, Ramraj Prasad Karsoliya Vs. State of M.P. 2002(2) MPLJ 21 , Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Muharashtra AIR 2000 SC 3377 , C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 , A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala 2009 Laws (SC)-5-181, State of Gujarat through C.B.I. Vs. Kumudchandra Pranjivan Shah 1995 Cri.L.J. 3623 (SC), Ayyasami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1992 Cri.L.J. 608 (SC), Jagdish Chandra Makhija Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1990 MPLJ 239 , Narayan Gir Vs. The State of M.P. 2008(4) MPHT 189 and M.K. Harshan Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1995 SC 2178 . 4. On the contrary, Shri R.R. Sinha and Shri Arun Singh, learned Panel Lawyers for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of Special Case No.4/2002. The learned Special Judge, after appreciation of the evidence available on record, held that the accused/appellant had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.400/- from complainant Fattulal (PW3) for mutation of the land in the name of the complainant in the revenue record. 6. Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7) deposed that on 16-5-2001, complainant Fattulal (PW-3) came to the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Raipur and submitted his complaint (Ex.P-5). Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta Office, Raipur forwarded the complaint (Ex.P-5) to him for taking necessary action. At that time, complainant Fattulal (PW-3) was present there. He recorded FIR (Ex.P-18). On 17-5-2001, along with Deputy Superintendent of Police S.R. Bhagat, Inspector Anil Pathak, Inspector Rakesh Bhatt and Constable Shyam Sunder Rao (PW-2), he proceeded from the office of Lokayukta, Raipur to Durg. They reached Raipur Naka, Durg, where Mine Inspector Rajesh Malve (PW-4) and Food Inspector Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6) met them. Both the witnesses boarded in Tata Sumo Vehicle with them. Thereafter, they reached near Nandini Aerodrum, where complainant Fattulal (PW-3) and Dilip Narange (PW-5) met them. Thereafter, they went to Village Birebhat near the canal and pre-trap proceeding was conducted under a Sirsa tree. Both the witnesses boarded in Tata Sumo Vehicle with them. Thereafter, they reached near Nandini Aerodrum, where complainant Fattulal (PW-3) and Dilip Narange (PW-5) met them. Thereafter, they went to Village Birebhat near the canal and pre-trap proceeding was conducted under a Sirsa tree. A pre-trap demonstration was arranged, wherein a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass. A piece of plain paper was dipped in the solution, colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, another piece of paper smeared with phenolphthalein powder was dipped in the solution, colour of the solution turned pink. Pre-trap panchnama (Ex.P-6) was prepared. After giving the demonstration, complainant Fattulal (PW-3) was asked to submit currency notes of Rs.400/-. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) submitted currency notes of Rs.400/- in the denomination of Rs.100/- each on which phenolphthalein powder was smeared and thereafter the said notes were kept in the pocket of complainant Fattulal (PW-3). Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) was informed and guided as to how the trap would be arranged and about the role which he had to play during trap-proceeding. 7. Fattulal (PW-3) deposed that the appellant was posted as a Patwari in Village Aheri. On 17-5-2001, he requested the appellant for mutation of his name in the revenue record in place of the name of his sister. The appellant demanded Rs.700/- therefor. He gave him Rs.300/-. Since he could not give him remaining Rs.400/-, the appellant did not mutate his name in the revenue record for about 1 year. Then he made written complaint (Ex.P-5) in the Lokayukta Office, Raipur. His further deposition is in similar fashion as is the deposition of Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7). 8. Rajesh Malve (PW-4) and Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6) deposed that they were posted as Mine Inspector and Food Inspector at Durg, respectively. They were called by Inspector, Lokayukta Office, Raipur. They had gone to Village Birebhat along with trap-team, where complainant Fattulal (PW-3) met with them. They inquired about the complaint (Ex.P-5) from complainant Fattulal (PW-3). They also perused the complaint (Ex.P-5). Thereafter, a pre-trap proceeding was conducted and pre-trap panch nama (Ex.P-6) was prepared. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) submitted currency notes of Rs.400/- in the denomination of Rs.100/- each on which phenolphthalein powder was smeared and thereafter the said notes were kept in the left pocket of complainant Fattulal (PW-3). 9. They also perused the complaint (Ex.P-5). Thereafter, a pre-trap proceeding was conducted and pre-trap panch nama (Ex.P-6) was prepared. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) submitted currency notes of Rs.400/- in the denomination of Rs.100/- each on which phenolphthalein powder was smeared and thereafter the said notes were kept in the left pocket of complainant Fattulal (PW-3). 9. Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7), Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6), Rajesh Malve (PW-4), Shyam Sunder Rao (PW-2), Fattulal (PW-3) and Dilip Narange (PW-5) deposed that they proceeded for the office of the appellant at Village Aheri. Complainant Fattulal (PW-3) and Dilip Narange (PW-5) went to the office of the appellant and gave currency notes of Rs.400/- to the appellant. Thereafter, complainant Fattulal (PW-3) came out of the office of the appellant and transmitted the signal as already instructed to him. Inspector Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7), Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6), Rajesh Malve (PW-4), Inspector Rakesh Bhatt and Inspector Anil Pathak entered the office of the appellant and caught both the hands of the appellant. They further deposed that a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared. Both the hands of the appellant were dipped in the solution, colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in a bottle and sealed. On being asked, the appellant told the trap-team that the currency notes were kept in the drawer of the table of the appellant. Rajesh Malve (PW-4) took out the currency notes from the said drawer. 10. Fattulal (PW-3) deposed that it is true that he had signed Supurdnama (Ex.P-8) in which it is mentioned that Rin-Pustika was received on 16-5-2000. It is also true that no Rin-Pustika was seized on the date of trap of the appellant. He further deposed that he had not perused the complaint (Ex.P-5) made to Lokayukta. It is also true that when his brother Dilip Narange (PW-5) was Sarpanch, at that time, Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7) was Station House Officer at Police Station Nandini. It is also true that on the report of the appellant, Dilip Narange (PW-5) was removed from the post of Sarpanch. It is also true that the application written by Dilip Narange (PW-5) was taken by both of them to the office of Lokayukta on 15-1-2001. Thereafter, police officials had come to his village. On being called by the police, he and the Sarpanch had gone to the police officials. It is also true that the application written by Dilip Narange (PW-5) was taken by both of them to the office of Lokayukta on 15-1-2001. Thereafter, police officials had come to his village. On being called by the police, he and the Sarpanch had gone to the police officials. He further deposed that the police officials had sent him along with Dilip Narange (PW-5) to the office of the appellant. Before sending them to the office of the appellant, what proceeding was conducted by the police officials was not known to him. He had given the currency notes of Rs.400/- to the appellant which were given to him by the police officials. Where were the currency notes kept by the appellant was not known to him. He further deposed that it is also true that Rin-Pustika was received by him and his name was mutated in place of the name of his sister. 11. Dilip Narange (PW-5) deposed that it is true that he was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Birebhat. It is also true that he was removed from the post of Sarpanch. Before his removal from the post of Sarpanch, an inquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar. It is true that complainant Fattulal (PW-3) is a literate person. It is also true that he had gone with complainant Fattulal (PW-3) to Lokayukta Office, Raipur. He had not written any application on 15-5-2001. 12. Rajesh Malve (PW-4) deposed that it is true that on 17-5-2001, no Rin-Pustika was seized from the appellant. He could not recollect whether complainant Fattulal (PW-3) was present on the date of incident or not. He also did not recollect that when were the currency notes recovered from the drawer of the table of the appellant and whether complainant Fattulal (PW3) was present at that time or not was also not known to him. 13. Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6) deposed that he had gone along with the trap-team. At that time, no application or complaint was shown to him. Two persons had met him, but who was complainant out of them was not told to him. He further deposed that no Rin-Pustika was seized. 14. On examining the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he took a defence that while his tenure, Dilip Narange (PW-5) was removed from the post of Sarpanch on the allegation of corruption after an inquiry. Two persons had met him, but who was complainant out of them was not told to him. He further deposed that no Rin-Pustika was seized. 14. On examining the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he took a defence that while his tenure, Dilip Narange (PW-5) was removed from the post of Sarpanch on the allegation of corruption after an inquiry. Being annoyed, with an intention to take revenge, Dilip Narange (PW-5), with assistance of his brother complainant Fattulal (PW-3) and Inspector Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7) with whom he was having cordial relation, conspired to implicate him. He has been falsely implicated in the case and is innocent. 15. After perusal of the evidence of Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7), Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6), Rajesh Malve (PW-4) and Fattulal (PW-3), it is proved that currency notes of Rs.400/- were recovered from the drawer of the table of the appellant and after comparing the numbers of the recovered currency notes with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap panchnama (Ex.P-6), they were found similar. 16. Now, I shall examine whether mere recovery of currency notes is sufficient to convict the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988. 17. In T. Subramanian Vs. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in a case under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, mere proof of receipt of money by the accused in absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification is not sufficient to establish guilt of the accused. If the accused offers reasonable and probable explanation based on evidence that the money was accepted by him, other than as an illegal gratification, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. 18. In Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. 19. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "18. 19. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "18. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC 725 , this Court took the view that (at SCC p. 727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. 22. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. "4. .......... It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden is shifted to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts i.e. that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt." (emphasis supplied) (See V.D. Jhingan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1762 at AIR p. 1764, para 4.) 20. In State of Kerala and another Vs. In State of Kerala and another Vs. C.P.Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "7. In the background of these facts, especially the non-examination of CW 1, was found very crucial by the High Court. The High Court has referred to the decision of this Court in Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 4 SCC 526 , wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that when there was no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe by the accused, it has to be accepted that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant cannot be relied on. In the aforesaid circumstances, the three-Judge Bench in Panalal Damodar Rathi case held that there is grave suspicion about the appellant's complicity and the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (See SCC para 11.) 10. In C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 , this Court while dealing with the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by referring to its previous decision in Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC 725 , held that mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. In the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained. (See SCC para 18.) 11. In a subsequent decision of this Court also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 , this Court made certain pertinent observations about the necessity of the presence of the complainant in a bribery case. The relevant observations have been made in paras 18-19 which are quoted below: (SCC p. 592) "18. ........... The High Court held that since the Special Judge made attempts to secure the presence of the complainant and those attempts failed because he was not available in India, there was justification for non-examination of the complainant. 19. We find it difficult to countenance the approach of the High Court. ........... The High Court held that since the Special Judge made attempts to secure the presence of the complainant and those attempts failed because he was not available in India, there was justification for non-examination of the complainant. 19. We find it difficult to countenance the approach of the High Court. In the absence of semblance of explanation by the investigating officer for the non-examination of the complainant, it was not open to the courts below to find out their own reason for not tendering the complainant in evidence. It has, therefore, to be held that the best evidence to prove the demand was not made available before the court." 12. Those observations quoted above are clearly applicable in this case. In the context of those observations, this Court in SCC para 28 of A. Subair case made it clear that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and the accused should be considered innocent till it is proved to the contrary by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which is the vital ingredient to secure the conviction in a bribery case. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, we find it difficult to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court." 21. In Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 3377 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "Mere recovery of the currency note of Rs.20/- denomination, and that too lying on the pad on the table, by itself, cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the acceptance of the bribe by accused. Such recovery also lend credence to the case of the accused that it fell on the table in the process of the accused pushing it away with her hands when attempted to be thrust into her hands by the complainant. The results of phenolphthalein test, viewed in the context that the accused could have also come into contact with the currency note when she pushed it away with her hands cannot by itself be considered to be of any relevance to prove that the accused really accepted the bribe amount. The results of phenolphthalein test, viewed in the context that the accused could have also come into contact with the currency note when she pushed it away with her hands cannot by itself be considered to be of any relevance to prove that the accused really accepted the bribe amount. More so when one of the panch witnesses, who accompanied complainant as a shadow witness, when he tried to give the bribe, did not support the prosecution case, another shadow witness, who first arrived on the spot after the signal was given by complainant, was not examined at the trial and the version of the complainant was rendered untrustworthy by the contradictory version of the very incident given by him when examined in departmental proceedings." 22. Fattulal (PW-3) specifically deposed that he had received Rin-Pustika before the date of incident. He, in cross-examination, in paragraph 6, specifically deposed that he had received Rin-Pustika on 16-5-2000 and the date of incident was 17-5-2001. Ex.P-7 is seizure memo of Bhu-Adhikar and Rin-Pustika Parts-I and II. In Ex.P-7, the date of seizure is mentioned as 17-5-2001. Rajesh Malve (PW-4) and Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6) deposed that on 17-5-2001, no Rin-Pustika was seized. 23. Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6) and Rajesh Malve (PW-4) deposed that who was the complainant was not told to them and no complaint was shown to them. Jitendra Singh Jangi (PW-7) deposed that Rajesh Malve (PW-4) had taken out the currency notes from the drawer of the table of the appellant. Whereas, Rajesh Malve (PW-4) deposed that he was sitting outside the office of the appellant because the room of the office of the appellant was small. Police had obtained his signatures after completion of the trap-proceeding. Rajesh Malve (PW-4), in cross-examination, did not depose that he had taken out the currency notes from the drawer of the table of the appellant. He simply deposed that he was sitting outside the office of the appellant. 24. Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6) deposed that who had taken out the currency notes from the drawer of the table of the appellant was not known to him. He could not tell the names of the persons who had caught hands of the appellant. He had only signed the documents prepared by the police officials. 25. 24. Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6) deposed that who had taken out the currency notes from the drawer of the table of the appellant was not known to him. He could not tell the names of the persons who had caught hands of the appellant. He had only signed the documents prepared by the police officials. 25. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of an inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence. If each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard so far as it satisfies the essentials of a complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence. 26. So far presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988 is concerned, it is well settled that the presumption to be under Section 20 is not inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence can rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has proved that the accused received the amount towards gratification. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act, 1988 is not akin to the burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden is shifted to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e., that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 27. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden is shifted to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e., that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 27. According to the prosecution, complainant Fattulal (PW-3) had given the currency notes to the appellant which the appellant had kept in the drawer of his table and the appellant had given Rin-Pustika to complainant Fattulal (PW3) which was seized vide Ex.P-7, but Fattulal (PW-3), Anand Chandra Mishra (PW-6) and Rajesh Malve (PW-4) deposed that no Rin-Pustika was seized before them on the date of incident. Fattulal (PW-3) had already received the Rin-Pustika before the date of incident. 28. Looking to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the currency notes were recovered from the drawer of the table of the appellant. It is also established that the hands of the appellant were caught by the Police Inspectors of the trap-team. Therefore, it is possible that the hands of the appellant would have come into contact of the hands of the Police Inspectors and the complainant and contents of phenolphthalein powder would have come into contact of the hands of the appellant from the hands of the Police Inspectors and the complainant and, therefore, on dipping of the hands of the appellant into the solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The prosecution witnesses Rajesh Malve (PW-4) and Anand Chandra Mishra (PW6) did not support the prosecution case that the currency notes were recovered from the drawer of the table of the appellant. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory in material facts. 29. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused/appellant from the complainant. The evidence of Fattulal (PW-3) and Dilip Narange (PW-5) are contradictory and not trustworthy. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it appears that Dilip Narange (PW-5) was removed from the post of Sarpanch on the basis of the report given by the appellant against Dilip Narange (PW-5). The evidence of Dilip Narange (PW-5) and Fattulal (PW-3) are not trustworthy. 30. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused/appellant from the complainant. The evidence of Dilip Narange (PW-5) and Fattulal (PW-3) are not trustworthy. 30. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused/appellant from the complainant. Mere recovery of money from the drawer of the table of the accused/appellant by itself cannot prove the charges of the prosecution against the accused/appellant in absence of an evidence to prove demand of bribe or to show that the accused/appellant voluntarily accepted the money. 31. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the charges framed thereunder. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties are continued for a period of six months from today. Appeal Allowed.