JUDGMENT Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the Counsel for the appellants. These appeals are heard and decided together by this common judgment, as the appellants are the accused in the same case. The background is as follows.-- The complainant was one Sanjeevkumar, a resident of Gajendragad, Ron Taluk. The land bearing Survey No. 127/1 measuring 2 acres, within the limits of Rajur Grama Panchayat, was held in the name of his younger brother and his brother intended to commence a granite cutting and polishing industry in the said land and therefore an application had been made in the name of the younger brother on 12-4-2005 to the Grama Panchayat, Rajur, seeking permission to construct a building for the purpose and had applied for licenses. A week thereafter, the complainant had went and met the Secretary and inquired about the grant. He was told to come two days later. Two days thereafter, when the complainant met accused 2, namely, the appellant in Cri. A. No. 2590 of 2010, he was informed that the licenses would not be issued so earlier and that there needs to be further discussion with the Administrative Officer, accused 1. The appellant in this case Cri. A. No. 2595 of 2010. Accordingly, the complainant was said to have been informed that a fee of Rs. 1,300/- would have to be paid and the conditions would be written on a bond paper of Rs. 20/- and that he would have to pay an amount of Rs. 4,000/- for the licenses to be issued and he was also told that immediately on payment of such amount, the licenses would be issued. On 12-4-2005, the complainant went to the office of the accused and the Administrative Officer, namely, the appellant in Cri. A. No. 2595 of 2010, was alone and the complainant was informed that he could meet both the appellants together and that he should come on the next day. Accordingly, on 28-4-2005, the complainant went to the Panchayat Office, met both the accused and he was told to pay the amount to accused 1, namely, appellant in Cri. A. No. 2590 of 2010. Accordingly, on 28-4-2005, the complainant went to the Panchayat Office, met both the accused and he was told to pay the amount to accused 1, namely, appellant in Cri. A. No. 2590 of 2010. Since the complainant was not happy with the manner in which the accused appellants were delaying the issuance of licenses, notwithstanding his willingness to pay the illegal gratification, he had made a complaint on 30-4-2005, to the Lokayukta Police Station, Gadag and accordingly, a case was registered and preparations were made to set a trap to apprehend the appellants red-handed while receiving the illegal gratification. Consequently, the Police, after making elaborate arrangements with regard to the trap proceedings, had proceeded to the office of the accused and the complainant along with the shadow witness namely, P.W. 1 had followed the instructions of the Police and entered the chambers of the office of the accused 1 and 2 and made an inquiry as to whether the licenses issued were ready and on being asked whether the bribe amount had been brought, it was claimed that the complainant had handed over Rs. 2,000/- each to the accused. It is thereafter he had signaled the Lokayukta Police Team, which was waiting outside, who immediately apprehended the accused and washed their respective hands with Sodium Bicarbonate Solution and the resultant liquid having turned pink in colour, was an indication that they had handled the tainted money which was used to trap the appellants. Consequently, the evidence of such trap proceedings were recorded and it is on the basis of the same, the appellants were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity). The accused having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and marked Exhibits P. 1 to P. 31 and Material Objects 1 to 20. After the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P.C.', for brevity), the Court below on hearing the arguments of the respective side and on the basis of the material evidence, had framed the following point for consideration.-- 1. After the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P.C.', for brevity), the Court below on hearing the arguments of the respective side and on the basis of the material evidence, had framed the following point for consideration.-- 1. Whether the prosecution proves that when the complainant who is the resident of Gajendragad has filed an application to Rajur Grama Panchayat to issue permission to construct the building and DOT licence as he intended to start granite cutting and polishing factory in their non-agricultural land situated in Sy. No. 127/1 of Rajur Village and for issuing permission and DOT licence accused 1 and 2 working as Administrative Officer and Secretary of Rajur Grama Panchayat, respectively, have demanded the complainant to pay Rs. 4,000/- as bribe in furtherance of common intention and that on 30-4-2005 at 3 p.m., in Naregal Nada Kacheri, while accused 1 and 2 were receiving Rs. 2,000/- each from the complainant, they were caught red-handed and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, beyond all reasonable doubt? The Court below answered the same in the affirmative and convicted the accused and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,500/- each and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. The sentences were to run concurrently. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeals. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution was required to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard, it was necessary that the evidence tendered in support of the charges was consistent and was corroborated. Insofar as the demand and acceptance of the bribe is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that on a demand for bribe being made by both the accused, the complainant had come prepared to pay the accused of Rs. Insofar as the demand and acceptance of the bribe is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that on a demand for bribe being made by both the accused, the complainant had come prepared to pay the accused of Rs. 2,000/- each and when the demand was made by the accused in their office, it was accordingly paid and it was thereafter that they were caught red-handed while receiving the amount. However, it is pointed out that P.W. 6-the complainant had in his examination-in-chief, stated that he had handed over the entire amount of Rs. 4,000/- to accused 1 and that no amount was received by accused 2. But however, he has thereafter changed his version to state that though he had paid the entire amount to accused 1, the police while allegedly seeking to seize the bribe amount from the possession of accused, had called upon the complainant to take back Rs. 2,000/- from accused 1 and to hand it over to accused 2. It is in that regard that the money was thrust on accused 2 as well. However, the evidence of the shadow witness-P.W. 1 was to the effect that the complainant had paid Rs. 2,000/- each to the accused 1 and 2. Therefore, the statements of the two witnesses as to the manner in which the demand and acceptance had been made is in total variance and it creates a serious doubt as to whether the entire episode was stage-managed. It is also pointed out that the alleged bribe was given in consideration of the accused providing the licenses, which had been applied for by the complainant. It is on record that the said licenses had been prepared and were ready and signed on the very day the trap was set. Therefore, the complainant had foisted a case against the accused, only in order to bring pressure on them, to complete the work at the earliest and the allegation of there being demand and acceptance of bribe is only to sustain the alleged trap proceedings, which had been prepared by the Lokayukta Police with much hype and in order to enable the Lokayukta and that by itself would not establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The serious discrepancy as to the manner in which demand and acceptance has been made and the fact that the money was recovered from the appellants by itself would not establish the case of the prosecution when there is discrepancy which is not explained with any clarity and therefore it is quite possible that the money had been thrust on the accused only to ensure their implication in the criminal case. It is this primary contention that is sought to be canvassed to hold that the appellants had not been shown to have committed the offences on the basis of the cogent evidence to establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt and hence seeks that the judgment be set aside and the accused be acquitted. 3. While the learned Counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta would seek to justify the judgment and would submit that the so-called inconsistency has been adequately explained by the complainant and cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the possession of currency notes which were treated with Phenolphthalein powder, raises a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act of having received the bribe amount and the burden of proof of establishing any explanation in this regard was on the accused and the explanation put-forth is untenable as to the same having been thrust on the appellants and it was the framework of the Lokayukta Police only in order to sustain the allegations and the trap proceedings that were carried out. The detailed evidence and the material on record, which has been addressed by the Court by a considered judgment cannot be negated only with reference to the so-called inconsistencies, which are sought to be highlighted. For otherwise, there is no defence available to the appellants insofar as the material documents that are relied upon by the prosecution in support of the charges. Merely on the ground that there is inconsistency between the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 6, cannot be a ground on which the well-considered judgment of the Court below ought to be interfered with and hence, seeks dismissal of the appeal. In the above circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it is necessary that the prosecution establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt especially, with regard to the aspect of demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification. In the above circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it is necessary that the prosecution establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt especially, with regard to the aspect of demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification. This would be a sine qua non of the offence punishable under the provisions of the PC Act. Therefore, the different versions given by P.Ws. 1 and 6 as regards the payment and receipt of the monies in variance with each other, is certainly a discrepancy, which would indicate that there was a move afoot to foist a false and concocted case against the accused. It is imperative that the complainant support the complaint with cogent and categorical evidence, which ought to be corroborated by the shadow witness, which, in effect is the endeavour of the prosecution in examining the complainant and the shadow witness in support of the charges. Therefore, the inconsistency and discrepancy in the basic ingredient of the commission of the offence of receipt of illegal gratification ought be free of all doubt and in view of the varying versions even as regards the actual payment of money to the accused in particular, would render the allegations to be of suspicious nature. As indeed the judgment has placed on the appellants the onerous burden of having to undergo the punishment of imprisonment for a substantial period, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the inconsistent statements of P.Ws. 1 and 6 certainly cast a doubt on the primary allegations of the prosecution as to the demand and acceptance of bribe, in that, the allegations are joint against accused 1 and 2. If there is evidence tendered to indicate that the bribe was paid to only one of the accused, whereas there is contradictory evidence to state otherwise, namely, that the bribe amount had been paid to both the accused, it certainly creates a grave doubt about the veracity and correctness of the evidence in support of the prosecution case. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the Court below is set aside. The appellants are acquitted. The fine amount shall be refunded to the accused. The bail bonds stand cancelled.