JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. APPELLANT Parkash Chand (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has appealed against the judgment dated 28.12.2011 of learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shimla, passed in Sessions Trial C.C. No.16-S/7 of 2010, titled as Central Bureau of Investigation versus Parkash Chand, whereby he stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof, further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month on each count. 2. IT is the case of prosecution that accused Parkash Chand was posted in the office of Garrison Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Engineer, Yol Cantt., as a Clerk in Military Engineering. Services (MES for short). He was dealing with pension cases of employees of MES. Complainant Udham Singh (PW-1) retired from MES on 31.3.2008. In line of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, his pension had to be re-fixed. Papers were to be processed and forwarded by the accused. Despite pursuing the matter with the accused, complainant could not get any satisfactory response. On 23.10.2009, accused demanded bribe of Rs.1,200/-- Rs.1,500/-, forwarding the pension case of the complainant to the higher authorities. Bargain took place and eventually, amount was settled at Rs.850/-. Complainant left the office, promising to return with money. Instead, complainant contacted Shri Gurdeep Singh, Head Constable of the Central Bureau of Investigation at Sakoh (Dharamshala) and filed a written complaint, with regard to the conduct of the 25th accused, on October, 2009. Accordingly, FIR No.RCSML2009A0004 of 2009, dated 25.10.2009 (Ex.PW- 8/A), under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, was registered at Police Station, CBI Shimla. Inspector Shri Avinash Saini (PW-8) proceeded to Yol Cantt., where he met Inspector Shri Ramesh and HC Gurdeep Singh. Also, Inspector Shri K.S. Rana was there. Inspector Avinash Saini then contacted Deputy General Manager, BSNL, Dharamshala as also Chief Officer, UCO Bank and requested them to provide one official each for secret duty. The officials were asked to remain present at HPPWD Rest House, Daad in the morning on 26.10.2009. From there they were to go to the office of the accused at Yol Cantt. Inspector Avinash Saini then contacted Deputy General Manager, BSNL, Dharamshala as also Chief Officer, UCO Bank and requested them to provide one official each for secret duty. The officials were asked to remain present at HPPWD Rest House, Daad in the morning on 26.10.2009. From there they were to go to the office of the accused at Yol Cantt. In the morning of 26.10.2009, Shri Vinod Kumar (PW-2), SDO, BSNL Nagrota Bagwan and Shri Phaninder Parsad (PW-5), Officer of UCO Bank, met PW-8 at PWD Rest House, Daad. At that time, complainant Udham Singh was also present. PW-8 verified the contents of the complaint and ascertained identity of PW-2 and PW-5. Eight currency notes having denomination of Rs.100/- and one of Rs.50/- were produced by the complainant. Their serial numbers were reduced in pre-trap Memo (Ex. PW-1/2). Procedure was explained to the complainant and the witnesses, who were also given demonstration. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and put in the pocket of the pant worn by the complainant. Shri Vinod Kumar (PW-2) was asked to accompany the complainant and witness the act of demand of bribe and payment thereof. Raiding party left for the office of the accused. Complainant and PW-2 searched for the accused, who was found in the canteen. The raiding party, including PW-5, kept a watch and waited for PW-2 to signal them, once demand was made and money exchanged hands. On seeing the complainant, accused straightway demanded bribe, saying that "Laye Ho" (have you brought), to which the complainant handed over the tainted notes to the accused, whereafter accused said "Tumhara Kaam Ho Jayega" (your work would be done). PW-2 immediately signaled and the raiding party arrived at the spot; caught hold of the accused; washed his hands and pocket of his pants with the solution of sodium carbonate, which turned pink. Samples were drawn. Currency notes matched with the description of notes recovered in Memo (Ex. PW-1/2). Accused was arrested. With the completion of formalities, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. ACCUSED was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 1(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. With the completion of formalities, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. ACCUSED was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 1(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the accused under provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took up a defence of false implication. In defence, he tendered documents (Ex. D-3 to D-6), which are letter written by Ltd. General to the accused (Ex. D-3), letter written by Lt. Colonel to the accused (Ex. D-4), letter regarding appointment of the accused as Naib Subedar (Ex. D-5), and papers regarding conferment of Honorary Rank on the accused (Ex. D-6). Appreciating the material on record, trial Court held the accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record. 6. IN convicting the accused, trial Court heavily relied upon the testimony of complainant (PW-1), Shri Vinod Kumar (PW-2) and Shri Phaninder Parsad (PW-5). Trial Court did not find favour with the past good conduct of the accused. It has come on record through the testimony of prosecution witnesses and more so Inspector Avinash Saini (PW-8) that there was no prior history of the accused having ever made any demands of illegal gratification. It has also come on record that accused had served in the Army and retired as Subedar Major (Clerk). He was conferred with the honorary rank of Lieutenant of Indian Army on Republic Day in the year 2008. 7. HOWEVER, past good conduct cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. 8. PW-8 admits that except for the instant complaint, there was no other written complaint against the accused. Though he states that he gathered information about the demand made by the accused for clearing files, but could not substantiate by giving particulars thereof. Significantly, he admits that he had "not" verified the antecedents and character of the accused from the office. Why so? he has not explained. Though he states that he gathered information about the demand made by the accused for clearing files, but could not substantiate by giving particulars thereof. Significantly, he admits that he had "not" verified the antecedents and character of the accused from the office. Why so? he has not explained. It has come on record that much prior to the demand of illegal gratification made by the accused. In fact, case of the complainant alongwith cases of other pensioners, already stood processed and files forwarded to the competent authority. This was so done by the accused himself. PW-8 also admits that he did not verify from other pensioners about any similar demands made by the accused from them. Thus, his statement about general reputation and conduct of the accused does not stand judicial scrutiny. No doubt, prosecution has been able to prove pre-trap Memo dated 26.10.2009 (Ex. PW-1/2), which categorically records presence of Shri Vinod Kumar (PW-2) and Shri Phaninder Parsad (PW-5), but however except for the oral testimony of PWs 2, 5 and 8, there is noting on record to show that these independent witnesses were actually deputed by their competent officers/authorities to associate themselves as part of the raiding party. Can it be said that prosecution has been able to establish their presence on the spot? In my considered view, not so. PW-8 states that he had orally sought permission from the superior officers, but then does not specify their particulars. There is nothing on record to show that presence of such persons was either sought for or permission ever granted. Absence of any sanction/permission, authorizing the witnesses to remain present on the spot gains significance, in view of the contradiction, which has come on record in their testimonies. Also, there is nothing on record to show as to how PW-8 got verified the identity of PW-2 and PW-5. It is not the case of prosecution that particulars of these witnesses were disclosed by the superior officers to PW-8 or that he knew them from before. In fact, PWs No.2 & 5 state that they directly went to Daad and met PW-8, for the first time, in the morning of 26.10.2009. 9. ONE witness states that he travelled in the vehicle of the raiding party, whereas another states that he travelled in his own car. In fact, PWs No.2 & 5 state that they directly went to Daad and met PW-8, for the first time, in the morning of 26.10.2009. 9. ONE witness states that he travelled in the vehicle of the raiding party, whereas another states that he travelled in his own car. PW-2 states that at the time when alleged demand was made, none was present in the canteen, whereas according to PW-5, in fact twothree persons were present. Significantly, PW-5 admits that on 26.10.2009, his presence was not marked in the office. Now, if this witness was on official duty, to associate himself with the raiding party, then obviously he had to be marked present on that date. Further he states that after the raid was conducted, accused was directed to wash his hands in a bowl/mug, which version stands contradicted by PW-1 and PW-2, according to whom the hands were washed in a glass. Both, PW-1 & PW-2 state that at the time of raid, raiding party interrogated certain persons present in the room of the accused. On the other hand, though PW-5 admits presence of a lady and a gentleman, but feigns ignorance as to whether they were interrogated or not. After all, this person being part of the raiding party remained with them throughout, but does not remember such fact. Who were these persons? Why were they interrogated? What did they disclose? Has not been proved on record. Why is prosecution trying to conceal it? Does it lend credence and probablizes the case of the accused of false implication? 10. THE contradictions do not end here, according to PW-1, after accused was asked to remove his pants. Raiding party provided another pants to him, to be worn for completing the proceedings. But, PW-5 categorically states that pants was provided by the colleagues of accused. Hence, testimony of PW-2 and PW-5, uninspiring in confidence, is unworthy of credence. When one comes to the testimony of PW-1, it be only observed that it does not inspire confidence and in the absence of any other corroboration, with respect to demand and recovery, it would be absolutely illegal, unfair and unjust to convict the accused. 11. IN State of Kerala and another versus C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 , the apex Court held as under: "7. 11. IN State of Kerala and another versus C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 , the apex Court held as under: "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 Vs. 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 Pannalal Damodar Rathi. Case (supra) held that there is grave suspicion about the appellant's complicity and the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. This Court finds that the appreciation of the ratio in Panalal Damodar Rathi case(supra) by the High Court was correctly made in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9............. 10. IN C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in 2009 (3) SCC779, this Court while dealing with the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, by referring to its previous decision in the case of ou Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in 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." (Emphasis supplied) 12. PW-1 admits that his wife had lodged a complaint to the effect that he was living with another woman. He admits that his wife often used to reside separately, but feigns ignorance and does not disclose reason for the same. If he does not know the reason, then who else would. Can he be said to be a truthful witness? PW-1 admits that his wife had lodged a complaint to the effect that he was living with another woman. He admits that his wife often used to reside separately, but feigns ignorance and does not disclose reason for the same. If he does not know the reason, then who else would. Can he be said to be a truthful witness? Apparently, this witness had got recorded name of one Ms Kamlesh and not his wife Ms Kamla Devi as a beneficiary in the pension papers. Objections were raised with regard to rights of this lady. He admits that there was an inquiry against him with regard to tampering of his service record. It has come on record that the office had also raised. objection in this regard. Is it that accused did not want to commit wrong act, the complainant got him falsely implicated. In Court this witness states that accused had made a demand of Rs.1,200/-- Rs.1,500/- but the amount was settled at Rs.850/-. Now, this version is an improvement from his version in complaint (Ex. PW-1/1), wherein he simply states that demand of Rs.850/- was made at the time when accused was caught. Why is it that he did not make any complaint to the superiors of the accused in the office itself? Even, according to the complainant, no demand was made by the accused on 26.10.2009. Accused simply asked "Laye Ho". Now, this version contradicts the version of PW-2, who though initially states that he did not hear any conversation, which took place between the accused and the complainant, but lateron clarifies that accused had demanded money, which fact stood contradicted by the complainant, who categorically states that no other conversation took place between him and the accused. Now, PW-2 states that he signaled to PW-5, who in turn signaled the raiding party, by calling on mobile. None of the police officials or the witnesses disclosed the number of the mobile. No record with regard to same has been proved by the prosecution. 13. FURTHER, according to the complainant, much prior to 23.10.2009, he had been visiting the office and requesting the accused to forward his pension papers, but surprisingly he does not remember the dates of such visit. The witness admits that accused, as a Clerk, was simply to forward the papers to higher authorities. 13. FURTHER, according to the complainant, much prior to 23.10.2009, he had been visiting the office and requesting the accused to forward his pension papers, but surprisingly he does not remember the dates of such visit. The witness admits that accused, as a Clerk, was simply to forward the papers to higher authorities. It has come on record, as is so suggested to this witness, that file of the complainant, actually stood submitted by the accused to the superior officers on 8.2.2009. The same was returned on 25.9.2009 but resubmitted on 1.10.2009, which fact is also evident from the testimony of Shri Mast Ram (PW-3), a Senior Auditor in the MES, Yol Cantt, as also statement of Shri Bhupinder Kumar (PW-7). It is not the case of the prosecution that accused had raised unnecessary objection. Insofar as accused is concerned, all formalities stood completed and file processed and sent to the superior officers much prior to the date of alleged demand. 14. HENCE, considering the evidence in totality and careful appreciation thereof, would only lead to one conclusion that the Court below erred in convicting the accused, resulting into miscarriage of justice. Prosecution, to my mind, has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, with regard to the charged offence. Recovery of currency notes alone cannot be a ground to convict the accused. There has to be a demand preceding such recovery. Consequently, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, creditworthy, reliable and independent piece of evidence, that the accused made demand of a sum of Rs.850/-. The relevant prosecution witnesses, unworthy of credence, their testimonies are not inspiring in confidence. 15. AS such, appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shimla, in Sessions Trial C.C. No.16-S/7 of 2010, titled as Central Bureau of Investigation versus Parkash Chand, is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charged offences. Bail bonds furnished by the accused stand discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.