JUDGMENT ; Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. The solitary appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months as awarded by Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, North Bihar, Patna, on 25th July, 2001 in Special Case No. 65 of 1990/29-A of 1990, by same judgment, he has been acquitted from the charges under Section 13 of the Act. 3. The case against the appellant has been initiated on the written information given by one Binay Kumar Sah (PW 9) on 27th August, 1990, intimating that arrears of his salary, for the month of April of the year 1990, is not being prepared by the appellant in spite of repeated request, since he is not obliging him by providing one bottle of Aristocrat or lastly by Rs. 50/-. On such information, a trap team was arranged and the trap was conducted after making necessary arrangement and making the witnesses aware of the procedures of which the pre-trap memorandum was prepared and note of Rs. 50/- provided spread by Phenolphthalein powder and as per schedule PW 9 along with PW 6 proceeded on DRM Office and remaining members of the team were there in the surrounding areas and try to came to railway canteen after some conversation whereon demand of the appellant for Rs. 50/- was paid and accepted by him. On getting signal the remaining members of the team arrived there and recovered the amount, conducted some tests and since gathering was being increased they proceeded for Circuit House where remaining process was done and concluded. 4. During trial, prosecution has produced documentary evidence besides producing altogether 12 witnesses : Exhibit 1 - Sanction order Material Exhibit I - Bottle (19239-A) 788/90/A. Exhibits 2, 2-A, 2/B - Signature dated 28.08.1990 on memorandum (three pages) Material Exhibit II - one sealed packet (pant). Exhibit 2/C - Signature on seizure memorandum. Material Exhibit III - Note of Rs. 50/- (fifty) number 7WM 655448. Material Exhibit 3 - Memorandum dated 28.08.90 three pages. Exhibits I/A, I/B, I/C close sealed bottle, three (1) Bottle 19239C (2) bottle 19239B (3) 19239D. Exhibit 4 - seizure memorandum five pages dated 28.08.90. Exhibit 2/C - Signature on seizure memorandum. Material Exhibit III - Note of Rs. 50/- (fifty) number 7WM 655448. Material Exhibit 3 - Memorandum dated 28.08.90 three pages. Exhibits I/A, I/B, I/C close sealed bottle, three (1) Bottle 19239C (2) bottle 19239B (3) 19239D. Exhibit 4 - seizure memorandum five pages dated 28.08.90. Exhibit 5 - F.I.R. Exhibits 3/1 to 3/3 - Memorandum signature of H.K. Thakur (three sheets). Exhibits 3/4 to 3/8 - signature memorandum of H.K. Thakur (five sheets). Exhibit 6 - Memorandum attested. Exhibit 7 - Pay bill April 90 endorsement and attested by N.P. Sinha. Exhibit 8 - Seizure Memo, Signature of N.B. Singh. Exhibit 9 - Arrear Bill April 90. Exhibit 10 - Dispatch register 15.6.1990 to 24.8.1990. Mark X/1 - Application of Binay Kumar Sah. Exhibits 11 to 11/1 - Complaint petition and signature of Binay Kumar Sah. Exhibits 11/2 to 11/4 - Memorandum three sheets sg. Binay Kumar Sah. Exhibits 11/5 to 11/9 - Seizure Memorandum five sheets sg. Binay Kumar Sah. Exhibit 12 - Application of Binay Kumar Sah. Mark Y - Seizure memo photo copy. Mark Z - Forwarding letter No. 7246. Exhibit 13 - Report of S. Mukhopathy. Exhibit 14 - Signature of Tripurari Jha in Seizure Memorandum. Exhibit 15 - Carbon copy of seizure memo prepared by S. Lakra. Exhibit 15/1 - Carbon copy of seizure memo prepared by R.R. Sahay. Exhibit 16 - Investigation Report of R.R. Sahay. Exhibit 17 - Forwarding letter. 5. Out of whom, PW 1 Devendra Pathak who is formal witness proved Exhibit-1. PW 2 Ramakant Thakur, an accountant of local Central Bank, called as independent witness has said about the arrangement and preparation of pre-trap memorandum. Exhibit 16 - Investigation Report of R.R. Sahay. Exhibit 17 - Forwarding letter. 5. Out of whom, PW 1 Devendra Pathak who is formal witness proved Exhibit-1. PW 2 Ramakant Thakur, an accountant of local Central Bank, called as independent witness has said about the arrangement and preparation of pre-trap memorandum. The demonstration of the procedure to be adopted and PW 6 was to accompany the complainant, so that he may be able to hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant, and only on demand complainant was to pay the money and give signal and according to him, as per prosecution, complainant and PW 6 H.K. Thakur proceeded for DRM Office and remaining members were present nearby the railway canteen and sometime thereafter there could be able to see the appellant, complainant and PW 6 coming and entering into said canteen where they consumed some eatables and thereafter on signal given by the complainant all went inside in order to hold of the appellant who on demand was to give money and after verification his both hands were washed by the solution of Sodium carbonate, its colour was changed, kept and seized in bottle. After completing these formalities all proceeded for Circuit House where trouser of the appellant was also taken and its pocket was washed by Sodium carbonate solution and its colour was also changed which was kept in sealed in bottle. But, contrary to his statement in chief, this witness in cross-examination (para 9) has said that no paper was prepared at said canteen, In paragraph 16, he admits Circuit House is situated at one kilometer distance from DRM Office, and on recall, he got the note of Rs. 50/- marked as material Exhibit-3. 6. Another independent witness, PW 6 tried to state prosecution version but in very examination in chief, para 4, he has started giving a different statement, according to him initially there was some conversation between the appellant and the complainant who came down and they were followed by remaining members of the team towards canteen where on getting signal from the complainant, appellant was apprehended, immediately. All came to Circuit House where entire process, since beginning till end, was done. PW 4 B.N. Roy and PW 7 Somesh Chattarjee were tendered for cross-examination. 7. All came to Circuit House where entire process, since beginning till end, was done. PW 4 B.N. Roy and PW 7 Somesh Chattarjee were tendered for cross-examination. 7. PW 3 Arjun Kumar Srivastava, Dy.S.P. of Central Bureau of Investigation, has come to say that on 27th August, 1990, he received complaint petition (Ext. 12) from the complainant (PW 9) and with consultation of Superintendent of Police, PW 11 Rajni Ranjan Sahay, inspector was instructed to proceed for further steps and accordingly after institution of First Information Report on the following date i.e. 28.08.1990, this witness along with Inspector Sahay another CBI Officials arrived at Circuit House, Samastipur, at about 1.00 a.m. where independent witnesses were also called, pre-trap demonstration was made after introduction to each other and accordingly all were entrusted with the job assigned to them, everything was taken down in pre-trap memorandum (Ext. 3) all arrived near DRM Office around 2.45 p.m. and thereafter PW 6, H.K. Thakur with complainant (PW 9) went inside where initially appellant was not available, however, came soon thereafter all the three were seen coming down and going towards canteen where they consumed eatables only thereafter the appellant received bribe from the complainant who in turn give signal, thereon entire trap team went inside and Rajni Ranjay Sahay (PW 11) after giving self introduction enquired about the money which wrong was accepted by the appellant who also sought apology, but his both hands were hold by S. Lakkar, Inspector and Ram Bhajan, constable, and on demand the appellant produced the money after taking out from right pocket of his trouser. Both the hands of appellant was washed by the solution which colour was changed, it was kept in the bottle sealed under the signature of the material witnesses, and since gathering was being increased after doing these formalities the team along with appellant came back to the Circuit House where remaining formalities were completed. Contrary to his examination in chief, in cross-examination (para 11) he states that at the place of payment of bribe and production of the appellant no seizure memo was prepared. Further, according to him no search of the appellant was done rather he produced the money but no production list was prepared. Again in para 15, he says that at the place of recovery solution bottle was sealed and everything consumed to 42 to 45 minutes. 8. Further, according to him no search of the appellant was done rather he produced the money but no production list was prepared. Again in para 15, he says that at the place of recovery solution bottle was sealed and everything consumed to 42 to 45 minutes. 8. PW 5 Bhagwan Singh formal witness proved Exhibit-5. PW 8 N.P. Sinha, railway employee who proved Exhibits 6, 7 series, 8, 9 and 10. During the course of examination, he admits which finds support from Exhibit-7 that arrear bills of difference amount due to complainant had already been prepared by the appellant on 22nd July itself, whereon this witness admits his signature on same day and further admits that after due verification it was dispatched to account section on 23rd August itself i.e. much before the lodging of complaint and consequent raid, what was to be done by the appellant had been done and there was nothing for the appellant to do further. 9. PW 9 Binay Kumar Sah, complainant, has stated about his complaint and admit his signature on the pre-memorandum chart and other connected papers and further at about relevant part of giving and taking bribe he says when he arrived at DRM Office as per schedule, he met the appellant on showing courtesy he asked about the money and asked to proceed for canteen where they took some eatables and there at about 3.30 p.m. the appellant demanded money and assured to prepare bill, it was paid and he kept it in the pocket of trouser. This witness admits presence of PW 6 there and only after giving money he signaled, remaining members of the trap team immediately came inside and got hold of the appellant and in that condition brought him at Circuit House where everything was done. In cross-examination, he admits appellants job was only to got the bill prepared and sent to account section and this job, as is evident from Exhibit-7 has already been completed by the appellant much before such exercise. 10. PW 10 Nand Bihari Singh, another railway employee, a witness of seizure memo and admits that difference bills was prepared by the appellant on 22nd August itself, whereon superiors also had put their due endorsements accordingly. 11. 10. PW 10 Nand Bihari Singh, another railway employee, a witness of seizure memo and admits that difference bills was prepared by the appellant on 22nd August itself, whereon superiors also had put their due endorsements accordingly. 11. PW 11 Rajni Ranjan Sahay, an Inspector and Investigating Officer of the case admits in very examination in chief about instruction of his superiors, Superintendent of Police and competent authority to permit for further action by Central Bureau of Investigation, that only after verification anything was to be done and as per this witness due verification was done, but he is silent about the verifier, nor any report of verification is on record. Had before taking action due verification about the complainant grievance being done? It could have been noticed that in fact the appellant had already discharged his duty much before complain was being made to Central Bureau of Investigation and due arrears bill had been dispatched to account section for further needfuls. True it is, earlier verification is not a requirement mandatory for further proceedings, but when there is a direction of competent authority to first verifier and then take any action. Proceeding without such verification or if there is at all any verification in absence of report of verifier or his appearance as witness entire exercise done by Central Bureau of Investigation comes under clouds. Since, as is evident there appears no justification to demand any amount by the appellant, since he had already discharged his duty much before even assuming he accepted tainted money and it was recovered, his conviction is not sustainable in view of the decision taken by a Bench of this Court in a case Ghanshyam Mishra v. State of Bihar, reported in 2010 (2) East Cr C 160 (SC) : 2010 (1) PLJR 925 . Furthermore, the facts and circumstances stated above, it indicates there is varying statements of the witnesses about the place of payment, recovery and completing the other formalities. 12. Further, H.K. Thakur, PW 6, the only independent witness who was entrusted to hear conversation between the complainant and the appellant about demand etc. Furthermore, the facts and circumstances stated above, it indicates there is varying statements of the witnesses about the place of payment, recovery and completing the other formalities. 12. Further, H.K. Thakur, PW 6, the only independent witness who was entrusted to hear conversation between the complainant and the appellant about demand etc. who also not been able to say about such conversation and as stated earlier, there is no justification for such demand and hence the principles laid down by the Apex Court in a case A. Subair v. State of Kerala, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 587 , also comes into play and presumption under Section 20 of the Act shall not come in the way of the appellant. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the decisions placed and relied upon by learned counsel representing Central Bureau of Investigation in cases of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 721 ; State represented by CBI Hyderabad v. G. Prem Raj, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 398 ; C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P.T.H.I.P., reported in AIR 2011 SC (Cr) 23 and Narayana v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2011 SC (Cr) 1953, are not applicable in the instant case. 14. In the result, appeal is hereby allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He is set free from the liabilities of the respective bail bonds furnished on his behalf. 15. Let the lower Court records be sent back to the Court below forthwith. Appeal allowed.