JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal.has been preferred appellant Jog Singh challenging the judgment dated 18.9.2000 passed learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur in Cr. Case No. 166/1997 (15/1996), whereby he was convicted and sentenced as below: Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 7 Months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1½ month's S.I. Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1 Years' 3 Months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 Months' S.I. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Bhanwar Bharati submitted a written report Ex.P-2 before the Additional Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur on 7.2.1996. It was alleged in the report that the complainant required a solvency certificate for the purpose of applying for a Krishi Mandi Licence. He filed the requisite documents before the Nayab Tehsildar, Osian on 6.2.1996. The Nayab Tehsildar marked the documents and returned the same to the complainant with the instruction to and them over to the clerk Jog Singh. The complainant took the documents and approached the clerk Jog Singh i.e. the appellant herein. The appellant demanded illegal gratification for preparing the certificate. When the complainant enquired about the quantum of bribe, he was informed that the going rate was Rs. 200/- for a certificate of Rs. 1 lac and thus, the complainant, who had applied for a certificate of Rs. 5 lacs would have to pay the amount proportionately. The complainant pleaded his poverty and prayed for a reduction on which the accused agreed to do the work for a total sum of Rs. 700/-. The complainant alleged that he was not willing to pay bribe to the accused and wanted to have him caught red handed. 3. The Additional Superintendent of Police upon receiving the application, initiated the proceedings for verification of the demand. The Constable Bhanwar Lal was sent with the complaint after providing him with a tape recorder for verification of the demand made by the clerk. They returned back and submitted the tape recorder to the Addl. S.P. On hearing the recording, the factum of demand of bribe by the accused was verified. 4. The Constable Bhanwar Lal was sent with the complaint after providing him with a tape recorder for verification of the demand made by the clerk. They returned back and submitted the tape recorder to the Addl. S.P. On hearing the recording, the factum of demand of bribe by the accused was verified. 4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau authorised the Inspector Arjun Singh to undertake the further course of action. Two persons namely Jaga Ram and Shyam Sundar Bissa were summoned to remain present as shadow witnesses in the trap proceedings which were scheduled for 8.2.1996. Pre-trap rehearsal was conducted in presence of the complainant and the shadow witnesses. The complainant presented seven notes of Rs. 100/- each to the Inspector. The inspector appended his initials on the notes and tainted them with phenolphthalein powder. The complainant was searched and thereafter the tainted currency notes were placed in his left shirt pocket. He was instructed to hand over the tainted currency notes to the accused on his demand and thereafter to give a signal to the trap party by brushing his hand on the head. 5. The trap party reached the Osian-Phalodi Bye-pass on 8.2.1996 at 10.30 A.M. The complainant was provided the mini tape recorder and was sent to the Teshil Office Osian. The witnesses Sunder Lal and Shyam Sundar were asked to follow the complainant and try to overhear the talks and see the transaction, which took place between the accused and the decoy. The trap party followed them and took their respective positions outside the Tehsil Office. At about 11.30 A.M., the complainant gave the prearranged signal on which the Inspector Arjun Singh and the other members of the trap party rushed into the Tehsil Office. A person was seen sitting on a chair in the Reader's room. The complainant pointed towards him and informed that he was the clerk Jog Singh, who had accepted Rs. 700/- as bribe for issuing the solvency certificate. The Inspector introduced himself to the per on, who identified himself to be Jog Singh UDC. The Constables Sundar Lal and Bhanwar Singh caught hold of his hands. When Jog Singh was asked about the bribe, he started trembling and after pondering for some time, replied that he had taken the amount from Bhanwar Bharati but returned the same back to him. The Constables Sundar Lal and Bhanwar Singh caught hold of his hands. When Jog Singh was asked about the bribe, he started trembling and after pondering for some time, replied that he had taken the amount from Bhanwar Bharati but returned the same back to him. The complainant immediately controverted the claim and stated that Jog Singh accepted the bribe money from him, counted the same and then placed it in a wooden rack inside the iron almirah. He also told that the accused took out the solvency certificate from the almirah, thereafter, locked the same and went to the Tehsildar and got the certificate signed. 6. The accused hands were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate whereupon the colour of the wash turned pink. The wash was sealed in four separate glass bottles. The accused was asked about the bribe money on which he replied that it was lying in the iron almirah, the key whereof was in his pocket. On being asked to open the almirah, Jog Singh opened the same and took out a wooden rack and told that the money was concealed in between the files, lying in the rack. The files were removed and underneath them, some notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were seen. Shyam Sundar lifted and counted the notes, which were 7 in number. The notes were bearing the initials of the Inspector Arjun Singh. The numbers of the notes tallied with the details of the notes submitted by the complainant to the Trap Laying Officer. The notes were seized and sealed. On enquiry' about the complainant's solvency certificate, the accused pointed towards documents lying on his office table. The documents included the complainant's solvency certificate, his application and the certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Mathaniya. The search of the Reader's room was undertaken and certain documents which appeared to be of suspicious nature, were seized. 7. Jog Singh was arrested and an amount of Rs. 2,450/- was recovered during his personal search. The accused explained that it was the amount received towards registration fees and some subscription. The proceedings were recorded in memos and thereafter were presented to the Additional Superintendent of Police. 7. Jog Singh was arrested and an amount of Rs. 2,450/- was recovered during his personal search. The accused explained that it was the amount received towards registration fees and some subscription. The proceedings were recorded in memos and thereafter were presented to the Additional Superintendent of Police. As a prima facie offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') was disclosed against the accused, an unnumbered report was drawn up and was forwarded to the Headquarters where F.I.R. No. 40/1996 was registered. 8. The investigation was handed over lo the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur, who conducted investigation and after procuring prosecution sanction, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur. Charges were framed against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and examined three witnesses in defence. The learned trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to hold the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Act and sentenced him as above. Hence, this appeal. 9. Shri C.D. Sandhu learned counsel appearing for Shri Sachin Acharya learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court was grossly illegal and contrary to the material available on record. He urged that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and thus the accused is to be considered innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptable of illegal gratification. Learned counsel urged that the prosecution case suffers from serious shortcoming and thus, the appellants conviction cannot be sustained. He further urged that neither the demand of the bribe was proved by the prosecution nor the acceptance thereof was established by proper evidence. Learned counsel urged that the prosecution case suffers from serious shortcoming and thus, the appellants conviction cannot be sustained. He further urged that neither the demand of the bribe was proved by the prosecution nor the acceptance thereof was established by proper evidence. He further contended that the investigation of the case was carried out by an Inspector, who was not authorised to conduct investigation and thus serious prejudice was caused to the appellant. He further contended that no prosecution witness deposed about the conversation which transpired between the accused and the decoy at the time of passing on of the bribe money. He further urged that the decoy did not support the prosecution story and the Seizure Officer did not seize the key of the almirah from which the bribe money was covered and therefore, there was no evidence to show that the trap money was placed by the accused in the almirah. Learned counsel further urged that the prosecution did not exhibit the recorded cassette of the conversion which took place between the accused and the decoy at the time of the demand or acceptance of the bribe. He submitted (hat the Constable Bhanwar Lal, who was posted in the Anti Corruption bureau, was inimical to the appellant and that he managed the filing of the false trap case against the appellant. He further urged that amount of Rs. 700/-, which was recovered in this case, was as a matter of fact placed in the almirah by Gulab Singh, who was collecting subscription for the Collectorate Staff Sports Club. He (bus prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be accepted. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the submissions advanced. by the learned counsel for the appellant. She submitted that the fact regarding pendency of the complainant's work with the appellant is not disputed and was duly proved by oral and documentary evidence. The accused himself did not deny this fact when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She further urged that the prosecution case regarding the appellant having demanded bribe from the complainant was proved and established from the complainant's evidence and his testimony has been duly corroborated by the evidence and his testimony has been duly corroborated by the evidence of the Constable Bhanwar Lal. She further urged that the acceptance of the bribe was also duly proved by the prosecution and the accused failed to give any plausible explanation for the bribe amount recovered from the almirah in his exclusive and conscious possession. She drew this Court's attention to the seizure memos Ex.P-2 and P-4 and urged that at the time of the seizure, the appellant failed to offer any explanation whatsoever for the recovered currency notes. She further urged that the wash taken from the hands of the accused immediately after the acceptance of the tainted currency notes upon analysis by the State Forensic Science Laboratory upon analysis by the State Forensic Science Laboratory gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. She thus urged that the prosecution has proved all the necessary ingredients of the offences against the appellant beyond all manner of doubt and thus the appeal should be rejected. 11. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the judgment impugned and the record. 12. For a proper appreciation of the arguments advanced at the bar and for the purpose of reappraisal of the material available on record, a brief summary of the evidence led by both the partners is noted herein-below: (1) PW-1 O.P. Saini was posted as Collector, Jodhpur at the relevant time. He accorded the sanction Ex.P-1 for prosecution of the appellant in this case. No significant cross-examination was made from this witness so as to discredit his testimony. (2) PW-2 Arjun Singh Inspector was the Trap Laying Officer. He stated that the complainant approached the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur Shri Ashok Patni on 7.2.1996 and complained that the accused was demanding bribe from him. The Additional Superintendent of Police sent the complainant with Constable Bhanwar Lal for verification of the demand. The demand was verified and a recording of the conversation was also saved in the micro cassette tape recorder provided to the complainant. On the demand of bribe being verified, proceedings for laying the trap were initiated. The Additional Superintendent of Police handed over the .complaint Ex.P-2 to the witness. The process of laying the trap was initiated by him on 8.2.1996. Shadow witnesses were summoned. The complainant presented the amount of Rs. 700/- to the Inspector. The Inspector rehearsed the formalities of the trap in presence of the complainant and the witnesses. The Additional Superintendent of Police handed over the .complaint Ex.P-2 to the witness. The process of laying the trap was initiated by him on 8.2.1996. Shadow witnesses were summoned. The complainant presented the amount of Rs. 700/- to the Inspector. The Inspector rehearsed the formalities of the trap in presence of the complainant and the witnesses. The trap party reached the Tehsil Office Osian. The decoy was sent to the Tehsil Office for passing the bribe money to the accused. After some time he came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. The Trap Laying Officer and the other members of the trap party rushed into the office where the appellant was sitting On being enquired about the bribe amount, he stated that h e had taken the money but claimed that he had returned it back to the complainant. The complainant immediately controverted his claim and stated that the amount had been placed by the accused in the almirah lying nearby. The accused thereafter opened the almirah and took out the wooden rack from wherein the tainted currency notes were recovered laying concealed under the files. In cross-examination, the witness was given a suggestion that the complainant presented the notes saying that Sohan Dan, TRA (Tehsil Revenue Accountant) had given the money for being handed over to Gulab Singh as his contribution in the Collectorate Staff Sports Club, Jodhpur. It was also suggested that he was not authorised to conduct the trap proceedings, which he denied. It was suggested to the witness that there were three tables in the room where the accused was sitting. A suggestion was also given that the almirah was being used the all three clerks but was denied by the witness. The witness however admitted that he neither saw the exchange of the bribe money nor did he overhear the conversion which took place at the time of the exchange of bribe money. A suggestion was given to the witness regarding the explanation given by the accused not having been faithfully recorded in the trap proceedings which the witness denied. He admitted that the complainant forgot to switch on the tape recorder at the time of exchange of bribe. (3) PW-3 Bhanwar Bharati was the decoy in this case. He turned hostile at the trial and flatly denied the prosecution suggestion that the accused demanded and accepted bribe from him. He admitted that the complainant forgot to switch on the tape recorder at the time of exchange of bribe. (3) PW-3 Bhanwar Bharati was the decoy in this case. He turned hostile at the trial and flatly denied the prosecution suggestion that the accused demanded and accepted bribe from him. Regarding the bribe amount, he stated that Sohan Dan met him and gave him the sum of Rs. 700/- for passing the same on to Gulab Singh the clerk at the Tehsil Office, Osian. He gave the said amount of Rs. 700/- to the Dy. S.P. on his demand and informed him that the amount had to be given to Sohan Dan. He stated that he was unaware of the subsequence action taken by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials. He further alleged that no trap proceedings took place in his presence. He admitted his signatures on the documents and stated that the documents were got signed from him at the Tehsil. The learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined the complainant after declaring him hostile and in the cross-examination, the complainant denied all suggestions given by the learned Public Prosecutor. (4) PW-4 Jaga Ram Bhati was the shadow witness of the trap proceedings. He stated that he was called to the Anti Corruption Bureau Office on 7.2.1996. Another molbir namely Shaym Sunder Bissa was already present in the office when he reached there. Bhawar Bharati was also sitting in the office. Some currency notes were lying on Arjun Singh's table. He was told that a case of bribe had been unearthed but no details of the person, who had demanded the bribe were disclosed by the officials. He alleged that the notes were given to Bhanwar Bharati after applying some powder to the same. Bhanwar Bharati went in the Tehsil Office and a little later gave the prearranged signal. When the trap party reached in the Office, a person was sitting with his hands held down by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials. On enquiry, the witness was told that the person was Jog Singh. The accused denied that he had accepted any money form Bhanwar Bharati. The witness further stated that Bhanwar Bharati stated that the amount had been placed by the accused in the almirah. The witness feigned ignorance as to whether the almirah was locked or not. Thereafter, the almirah was opened and the notes were recovered from therein. The accused denied that he had accepted any money form Bhanwar Bharati. The witness further stated that Bhanwar Bharati stated that the amount had been placed by the accused in the almirah. The witness feigned ignorance as to whether the almirah was locked or not. Thereafter, the almirah was opened and the notes were recovered from therein. The witness admitted his signatures on the recovery documents. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that after the trap party went in the room, two witnesses caught hold of the hands of the accused and then he came out. Thereafter, he was called in only to sign the documents. He denied having seen or participated (he whole seizure proceedings. He failed to identify the person who had taken the amount out of the almirah. He also admitted that he did not see the exchange which took place in the room and also could not overhear the talks which took place inside the room. (5) PW-5 Sunder Lal was Constable in the Anti Corruption Bureau. He supported the prosecution story as deposed by PW-2 Arjun Singh. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not sign any of the documents prepared at the time of recovery except the site plan. To the suggestion that the actual passing on of the notes was not seen by him, the witness replied that the amount was given after taking it out of the shirt pocket but the view was blurred. " :i;s rks cq'kVZ dh tsc ls fudky dj fn;s FksA vLi"V lk fn[k jgk FkkA " (6) PW-6 Kana Ram was a clerk in the Tehsil Office. He turned hostile. However, the significant fact in his cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the witness stated that there was one iron almirah and a wooden almirah in the room, in the exclusive control of Jog Singh. He also stated that the keys of the almirah in the room were with Jog Singh. No significant cross-examination was one from this witness. (7) PW-7 Rajjaq Mohd. was a formal witness regarding the rehearsal of the trap proceedings. (8) PW-8 Chetan Ram was another Constable in the Anti Corruption Bureau. He also participated in the trap proceedings and gave a deposition similar to that of Arjun Singh. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not sign any of the documents prepared at the time of the trap. (8) PW-8 Chetan Ram was another Constable in the Anti Corruption Bureau. He also participated in the trap proceedings and gave a deposition similar to that of Arjun Singh. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not sign any of the documents prepared at the time of the trap. He also admitted that he did not see the transfer of the brine money. He also admitted that nobody saw the notes being placed in the almirah. (9) PW-9 Shyam Sundear Bissa was the second shadow witness of the trap proceedings. He deposed that after being called to the Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Arjun Singh introduced him to Bhanwar and informed that Bhanwar Bharati had complained that somebody was demanding bribe from him. The name of the person demanding the bribe was not revealed. The rehearsal of the trap proceedings was conducted and thereafter, the tainted currency notes were handed over to Bharat Bharati with the instruction to hand them over to the accused on his demand. Upon reaching Osian, Bhanwar Bharati was sent to the Tehsil Office. A little later, he came out and gave the prearranged signal. The witness stated that neither did he see the passing on of the notes nor could he over hear the conversation, which took place inside the room at the time of exchange of bribe. He supported the remaining trap proceedings. However, o the aspect of having over heard the conversation and having witnessed the passing on of the trap money, the witness was declared hostile and was confronted with his previous statement Ex.P-27. He feigned ignorance about the same. (10) Ashok Patani the Additional Superintendent of Police deposed having received the application Ex.P-22 submitted by Bhanwar Bharati. Thereafter, Bhanwar Bharati was sent with Bhanwar Lal Constable for verification of demand of bribe. The demand of bribe was verified and after confirming the same by hearing the tape recorded conversion, the witness deputed the Inspector Arjun Singh to conduct the tape proceedings. Arjun Singh conducted the trap and thereafter submitted the documents of the proceedings to him. Thereafter, the witness forwarded the unnumbered report to the Anti Corruption Bureau Headquarters where the F.I.R. No. 40/1996 was registered. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that the cassette prepared at the time of the verification of the demand was not available on the record of the case. Thereafter, the witness forwarded the unnumbered report to the Anti Corruption Bureau Headquarters where the F.I.R. No. 40/1996 was registered. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that the cassette prepared at the time of the verification of the demand was not available on the record of the case. He also admitted that no steps were taken during investigation for comparison of the voices in the tape recorded conversation. He also admitted that he did not record the statements of Bhanwar Bharati and Bhanwar Lal regarding the verification of demand of bribe. (11) PW-11 Bhanwar Lal was posted as a Constable at the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur. He is the person, who was sent with Bhanwar Bharati to verify the demand made by the accused. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that lie went with Bharat Bharati to the appellant's room. The appellant was sitting on a chair. When Bharat Bharati talked to the appellant about his solvency certificate, the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 700/- as a commission. Bhanwar Bharati requested that he should accept 7500/-, but the appellant replied that Rs. 500/- would have to be given to the superior officers and only Rs. 200/-was his share of the commission. Thereafter, the witness returned back and presented the tape recorder to the Additional Superintendent of Police. The witness thereafter participated in the trap proceedings and gave a deposition similar to that of Arjun Singh. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that no memo/transcription of the tape recording carried out during the demand verification proceedings was prepared. He further admitted that the tape recorder was not sealed in his presence. He further admitted that his signatures were not taken on the running note Ex.P-2. He further admitted that he did not see the exchange of bribe. He also admitted that he did not see anybody placing the notes in the almirah. He denied the suggestion that he got Jog Singh trapped as he refused to pass his brother Vishnu's registry. (12) The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took a defence that Bhanwar Lal Constable and his brother Vishnu had come to the Tehsil Office Osian on 18.12.1995 for registry of a plot. They wanted to have the registry done on a stamp of lesser value but he disagreed. On this, both became annoyed with him. (12) The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took a defence that Bhanwar Lal Constable and his brother Vishnu had come to the Tehsil Office Osian on 18.12.1995 for registry of a plot. They wanted to have the registry done on a stamp of lesser value but he disagreed. On this, both became annoyed with him. He stated that Bhanwar Lal started bearing ill will against him and thus he managed the false trap proceedings. He further stated that no recovery was effected from him. The amount of Rs. 700/- was recovered from Gulab Singh Clerk, who was collecting the subscription for the Collectorate Staff Sports Club. (13) Three witnesses Sohan Dan DW-1, Dhanraj DW-2 and Gulab Singh DW-3 were examined in defence. (14) DW-1 Sohan Dan stated that he gave a sum of Rs. 700/- to Bhanwar Bharati for being passed on to Gulab Singh for the purpose of depositing it as his contribution in the Collectorate Starr Sports Club. (15) DW-2 Dhanraj tire officiating Tehsildar stated that he prepared the receipt Ex.D-1 for the purpose of depositing Rs. 700/- sent by Sohan Dan as his contribution for the Collectorate's Staff Sports Club. The receipt was thereafter cancelled because the amount was taken away by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials in the trap proceedings. (16) DW-3 Gulab Singh stated that Bhanwar Bharati gave him the amount of Rs. 700/- saving that the amount had been sent by Sohan Dan as his contribution in the collectorate staff sports club. He took the amount from Bhanwar Bharati and placed it in the almirah jointly used by him and Jog Singh. He prepared the receipt. In the meantime a Peon of the Tehsil came and told him that Jog Singh had been apprehended by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials. The amount of Rs. 700/- was taken away by the Anti Corruption Bureau people and therefore, the receipt was cancelled. The witness stated that the almirah, wherein the amount was placed was not locked. He further admitted in the cross-examination that by the time when he placed the amount in the almirah, Jog Singh had not come to the office. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he placed the amount of Rs. 700/- in Jog Singh's almirah because he was to forward the amount to Jodhpur with some employee. The receipt book was provided to him by the Tehsildar. 13. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he placed the amount of Rs. 700/- in Jog Singh's almirah because he was to forward the amount to Jodhpur with some employee. The receipt book was provided to him by the Tehsildar. 13. On re-appreciating the evidence recorded at the trial, and analyzing the same, the following facts can be concluded affirmatively: (1) The prosecution did not produce and exhibit the primary and vital piece of evidence i.e. the recorded cassette for proving the conversation which took place between the accused and the decoy at the time of the alleged demand of bribe. (2) There is no evidence on the record to prove as to the conversion which took place between the decoy and the accused appellant at the time of the passing on of the notes. Admittedly the tape recorder could not be switched on at that time. The Seizure Officer PW-2 Arjun Singh in his cross-examination admitted that the decoy forgot to switch on the tape recorder when the bribe amount was passed on to the accused. The decoy denied the allegation of acceptance of bribe by the accused and the shadow witnesses denied having heard the conversion. (3) No comparison of the voices recorded in the cassette was conducted by adopting any scientific method. (4) The key of the almirah from which the tainted currency notes were recovered was not seized by the Investigating Officer. (5) The Tehsildar, who was the Incharge of the Office was not examined by the prosecution to prove that the almirah was in the exclusive possession of the appellant. DW-3 Gulab Singh stated that he and Jog Singh were in Joint control of almirah in question. The witness further stated that there was no lock on the almirah. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he placed the amount of Rs. 700/- in the almirah and at that time, Jog Singh was not present in the room. 14. Now the question, which remains to be considered by this Court is as to whether the prosecution was able to prove by any other reliable and admissible evidence that the accused demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant has not very seriously challenged the fact regarding the complainant's work pending with the accused in the Tehsil Office at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the appellant has not very seriously challenged the fact regarding the complainant's work pending with the accused in the Tehsil Office at the relevant time. The decoy PW-3 Bhanwar Bharati despite turning hostile regarding the trap proceeding stated that he submitted an application in the Tehsil for procuring the solvency certificate. The decoy also stated that when his work was not being done expediently, he was advised that he should approach the Anti Corruption Bureau. Thereafter, he went to the Anti Corruption Bureau and submitted the report Ex.P-2. The witness admitted that he got the report Ex.P-2 prepared and then went and submitted it at the Anti Corruption Bureau. PW-11 Bhanwar Lal stated on oath that he went with the complainant for verification of the demand of bribe by the accused. He stated that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 700/- as bribe from the complainant in his presence. He further stated that the accused told that Rs. 500/- was meant for the superior officers and Rs. 200/- was for himself. 15. The allegation that the accused demanded bribe could have very well been proved by the prosecution despite the decoy turning hostile had the investigation been carried out properly. The Seizure Officer PW-2 Arjun Singh stated that the verification of demand of bribe was made by hearing the conversation recorded in the micro cassette recorder. As has been stated above, neither the micro cassette recorder nor the cassette were produced in the Court for proving the conversation recorded during the verification of demand nor the prosecution adopted any scientific means to have the voices in the recording compared. Furthermore, the Seizure Officer also did not state in his testimony that the report Ex.P-2 submitted by the decoy was read over in this presence of the witnesses. Had the report been read over in presence of the witnesses and if the complainant had admitted the contents thereof, then the fact regarding the accused demanding the bribe could have been corroborated. 16. In backdrop of the fact that the tape recording of the conversation was not proved by the prosecution and as the complainant himself denied that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe, it is to be considered as to whether solely on the statement of Bhanwar Lal, (he alleged verification of the demand of bribe, can be accepted. 16. In backdrop of the fact that the tape recording of the conversation was not proved by the prosecution and as the complainant himself denied that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe, it is to be considered as to whether solely on the statement of Bhanwar Lal, (he alleged verification of the demand of bribe, can be accepted. Significantly enough, the proceedings of the verification of demand by the accused were recorded by the Addl. S.P. Sh. Ashok Patni PW-10 in Ex.P-2 at 11.30 A.M. No signatures of Bhanwar Lal were taken on the said document. Furthermore, the story as set up by Bhanwar Lal that the accused split up the amount and told that t 500/- had to be given to the superior officers and Rs. 200/- were to e retained by him is not mentioned in the verification proceedings recorded by Sh. Ashok Patni in Ex.P-2. No such fact is mentioned in the nothing G to H bl oDr Jh Hkaoj Hkkjrh e; dkfu0 Hkaoj yky gkftj vk;sA lkFk esa Vsi fjdkWMZj is'k fd;k ftls lquk x;kA vkilh okrkZyki ls Hkh tksxflag }kjk iSls fj'or esa ekaxus dh iqf"V gksrh gSA vfxze dk;Zokgh ds fy;s Jh vtqZu flag] fujh{kd dks vf/kd`r fd;k x;k o funsZ'k fn;s x;sA made in this regard by the Additional Superintendent of Police on the reversed of the application Ex.P-2. Thus, there is a fundamental and a material contradiction in the evidence of PW-11 Bhanwar Lal and the recital recorded in Ex.P-2 regarding the exact words spoken by the accused at the time of verification of demand. 17. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the allegation of the prosecution regarding the accused having demanded bribe from the complainant remains unsubstantiated and unproved. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in numerous decision that where the demand of bribe is not proved, the mere recovery of the bribe amount would not be sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused. It was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. SC 914 , that the demand of illegal gratification is a sine-qua-non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient for convicting the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "7. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient for convicting the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "7. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act 1988. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. [Vide: Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 ; T. Subramanian v. The State of T.N., AIR 2006 SC 836 ; State of Kerala & Anr. v. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 ; and Mukut Biliari & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 6421 ." 19. Thus, the situation, which melts down from the above discussion and the proposition propounded by the Apex Court is that the prosecution case regarding the accused having demanded bribe from the complainant is unacceptable. The recovery admittedly was not made from the personal search of the accused. v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 6421 ." 19. Thus, the situation, which melts down from the above discussion and the proposition propounded by the Apex Court is that the prosecution case regarding the accused having demanded bribe from the complainant is unacceptable. The recovery admittedly was not made from the personal search of the accused. Therefore, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not be available to the prosecution. 20. The question, which still remains to be examined is as to whether an inference can be drawn against the accused appellant in view of the fact that the tainted currency notes were recovered from an almirah allegedly to be in his exclusive possession. The prime evidence in this regard could have been the key of the almirah. Had the key been seized by the Investigating Officer, then the Court could have been persuaded to accept the prosecution case regarding the appellant being in exclusive possession of the almirah. It is admitted situation that the key was not seized by the Seizure Officer. DW-3 Gulabchand the clerk, who was also posted in the Tehsil office deposed that he himself and the appellant both used to operate the almirah jointly. 21. A similar situation was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhakishan v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1963 SC 822 . The Hon'ble Apex Court considered a situation where the key of the almirah was provided by the father of the accused. The incriminating letters were found from inside the almirah. Holding that the almirah was not in the exclusive possession of the appellant, the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the incriminating letters were within the exclusive possession of the appellant. It was held that no presumption could be drawn against the accused that he had secreted the incriminating letters by the mere fact that they were found in the almirah, which at best may be recorded as being in the joint possession of the accused and his father. 22. Therefore, merely because the currency notes were recovered from the almirah, which was apparently being operated by more than one persons, the appellant cannot be conclusively held to be the person, who secreted the notes inside the almirah. 22. Therefore, merely because the currency notes were recovered from the almirah, which was apparently being operated by more than one persons, the appellant cannot be conclusively held to be the person, who secreted the notes inside the almirah. This conclusion is fortified from the fact that the decoy complainant did not support the prosecution story in this regard and none of the shadow witnesses or other members of the trap party deposed having seen the appellant placing the currency notes in the almirah. 23. Though the accused tried to prove in defence that the notes in question were given by the complainant to the clerk Dhanraj DW-2 but the defence theory in the opinion of this Court is highly self contradictory and flimsy. However, before the defence is looked into, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As this Court has already held that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, this Court need not well upon the shortcomings in the defence theory. 24. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the inspector was not authorised to conduct the search, seizure and investigation in this case deserves to be rejected in view of the recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kaushal Kumar Garg v. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 160/2000) decided on 25.9.2013 , wherein this Court took cognizance of the notification issued by the State of Rajasthan in the year 1978 authorising the Inspectors posted in the Anti Corruption Bureau to conduct the search, seizure and investigation. 25. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of the offences against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 26. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment dated 18.9.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offences is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. His bail bonds are dis 'Record be sent back forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******