JUDGMENT P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 7th of January, 2008 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 13 of 2000 by the Special Judge, Nagpur. By this judgment. appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-,in default to suffer R.I. for 20 days for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In brief, case of prosecution can be stated as under 2. On the day of incident, which took place on 2nd of June, 1999, appellant/accused was working as a Clerk in the office of City Survey No. 1, Sadar, Nagpur. Complainant Mirza Beg intended to purchase a plot bearing No. 249 situated at Mahal Nagpur from one Motiram Durugkar and for that purpose he wanted to obtain Property Card in respect of said property from the office of appellant and had accordingly met appellant in his office on 2nd of June, 1999 as he was dealing with acceptance of applications for issuance of Property Card and was issuing the same. It is the case of prosecution that as complainant was urgently in need of said document, appellant had demanded Rs. 200/-as bribe, out of which complainant paid Rs. 50/- immediately. Thereupon, appellant issued one government receipt valued for Rs. 5/- towards payment of charges for receiving Property Card and directed complainant to make payment of balance amount of Rs. 150/- on the same day in the evening when he would handover him the document. As complainant was not intending to give the bribe amount, he visited office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur and lodged his report (Exh. 12) which was recorded by PW 6 Dinkar, Dy. S.P., (A.C.B.), the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, two panchas were summoned including PW 3 Madan Devhare, first panch, who was working in the office of Regional Development Dairy, Nagpur. Both panchas verified the correctness of complaint from the complainant. 12) which was recorded by PW 6 Dinkar, Dy. S.P., (A.C.B.), the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, two panchas were summoned including PW 3 Madan Devhare, first panch, who was working in the office of Regional Development Dairy, Nagpur. Both panchas verified the correctness of complaint from the complainant. The panchas and complainant were then given demonstration of effect of phenolphthalein powder with solution of Sodium Carbonate. From this demonstration they learnt that when this power comes into contact with solution of Sodium Carbonate, it turns purple. Complainant then produced amount of Rs. 150/- consisting one currency note each in the denomination of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- respectively. Their serial numbers were recorded in the pretrap panchanama (Exh. 18). Phenolphthalein powder was applied to said currency notes. Said currency notes were kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant and he was instructed not to touch the currency notes till demanded and to pay only on demand by the appellant. Complainant was further instructed to remove handkerchief from his pocket by way of signal to the members of the raiding team on payment of bribe. PW 3 Madan Devhare was instructed to remain with the complainant and to observe the transaction and conversation whatsoever may take place between complainant and the appellant. Panchanama of all these facts was drawn as per Exh. 18 and trap was laid in the office of appellant. 3. It is further case of prosecution that after complainant met the appellant, appellant issued him Property Card and demanded Rs. 150/which was accordingly given by complainant and on complainant's giving proposed signal, members of the raiding team arrived on the spot and apprehended appellant by holding both of his hands. The currency notes were recovered from the person of appellant. The appellant has then tendered his written explanation. Fingers of both hands of appellant as well as of complainant were tested under the solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned purple. Investigating Officer then forwarded his complaint (Exh. 12) to Sadar Police Station on the basis of which offence came to be registered and was further investigated. During the course of Investigating, correspondence was made for obtaining sanction for prosecution. On receipt of sanction to prosecute the appellant, chargesheet came to be filed before the Special Court, Nagpur. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant vide Exh. 3 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of Investigating, correspondence was made for obtaining sanction for prosecution. On receipt of sanction to prosecute the appellant, chargesheet came to be filed before the Special Court, Nagpur. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant vide Exh. 3 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of appellant is of total denial and of false implication. 5. Learned Trial Judge, considering the evidence on record, convicted appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. Heard Shri R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for both the sides, with their assistance, I have scrutinized the evidence on record. 8. Complainant PW1 Mirza Beg has stated that he knew one Motiram Durugkar who was intending to purchase one plot of Mr. Jain situated in Mahal locality and thus requested complainant to collect Property Card in respect of said property from the office of City Survey, Sadar Nagpur. He further stated that for that purpose, on 2nd of June, 1999, complainant visited said office where appellant was found working and dealing with the work of preparing Property Card and submitted his application to the appellant when, according to the complainant, appellant demanded Rs. 300/-for supplying the Property Card in respect of plot in question which amount was, however, negotiated to Rs. 200/-, out of which amount of Rs. 50/-was paid by the complainant and appellant thereafter issued one receipt and thereafter insisted complainant to make payment of Rs. 150/-. As complainant was not intending to make payment of bribe, on the same day he visited the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur and lodged his report vide Exh. 12. It is further stated by the complainant that in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau he was introduced to two panch witnesses namely; one Davhare and Jagtap who enquired from the complainant about his complaint (Exh. 12) and verified the contents of the same. Complainant further stated of his producing bribe money consisting one note each in the denomination of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- and about staff of office of Anti Corruption Bureau, giving demonstration of effect of phenolphthalein powder with solution of Sodium Carbonate from which he learnt that when this powder comes into contact with said solution, it turns into purple colour. 100/- and Rs. 50/- and about staff of office of Anti Corruption Bureau, giving demonstration of effect of phenolphthalein powder with solution of Sodium Carbonate from which he learnt that when this powder comes into contact with said solution, it turns into purple colour. He further stated about application of said powder to the currency notes which were kept in right side pocket of his shirt, and about instructions given to him to not to touch the same unless it is demanded. He further stated about the signal to be given by him to the raiding team. 9. On the point of incident it is stated by complainant that thereafter he accompanied with PW 3 Madan Davhare to the office of appellant who was found talking with some other person. Thereafter, appellant enquired from complainant if he has brought the receipt upon which complainant produced said receipt and appellant supplied him Property Card. It is further stated that appellant then by gesture asked complainant if he has brought the amount and also orally asked complainant if amount is brought, to which complainant replied in affirmative and paid Rs. 150/- to appellant by removing the same from his shirt pocket by his right hand which appellant accepted by his right hand and kept the same in his shirt pocket. 10. It is further stated by complainant that thereafter he gave proposed signal on which raiding-party members arrived on the spot and copanch apprehended the appellant by holding his hands and thereafter he was directed to remain out of the office. 11. Before considering the cross-examination of complainant it is necessary to note that according to the case of prosecution and the Charge (Exh. 3) framed, it appears to be the case of prosecution that appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 400/- on 2nd of June, 1999 which was negotiated to Rs. 200/-. out of which Rs. 50/-was paid on the day itself and balance amount of Rs. 150/- was agreed to be paid. However, from the evidence of complainant what has come on record is that on the day of incident on 2nd of June, 1999 when he visited the office of appellant had demanded him Rs. 30/- which amount was negotiated to Rs. 200/-out of which amount of Rs. 50/- was paid. Complainant has also stated that on making payment of Rs. 50/-. appellant had issued him a receipt. 30/- which amount was negotiated to Rs. 200/-out of which amount of Rs. 50/- was paid. Complainant has also stated that on making payment of Rs. 50/-. appellant had issued him a receipt. Complainant has stated that said receipt was valued for Rs. 40/- or Rs. 50 - and has further stated that no amount was mentioned in the receipt which was issued by the appellant. Said money receipt is on record at Exh. 11. In view of above evidence. when receipt Exh. 11 is perused that appears to be valued far Rs. 5 - towards payment made to Government. This receipt, therefore, appears to be issued by the appellant on complainant's making application for receiving Property Card. No explanation is put forth by prosecution with reference to any other receipt as stated by complainant valued for Rs. 40/- or Rs. 50/-. Similarly, case of prosecution creates doubt from its very inception, as according to the charge, it is complainant Mirza Beg who wanted to purchase plot No. 249 from one Motiram Durugkar and for that purpose he wanted to obtain its Properly Card and has accordingly applied for receiving the same to the appellant, while, according to the oral evidence of complainant, as referred above, it is stated by complainant that he knows one Motiram Durugkar and Durugkar was intending to purchase plot of one Jain situated in Mahal locality and therefore Durugkar had requested complainant to obtain Property Card of said plot from the office of appellant for which purpose complainant visited the office of appellant on 2nd of June, 1999. No explanation is put forth by the prosecution bringing on record true facts, as from the case of prosecution it appears that it is the complainant who wanted to purchase the plot owned by Motiram Durugkar while according to complainant it is Durugkar who wanted to purchase the plot of one Jain situated at Mahal locality for which purpose Durugkar instructed complainant to obtain Property Card from the office of appellant. Prosecution has not examined Motiram Durugkar or Shri Jain. Above contradictory evidence of complainant to the case of prosecution thus creates reasonable doubt as to whether complainant, in fact, was in need of Property Card at all. Prosecution has not examined Motiram Durugkar or Shri Jain. Above contradictory evidence of complainant to the case of prosecution thus creates reasonable doubt as to whether complainant, in fact, was in need of Property Card at all. In the cross-examination, complainant has admitted that he had not obtained any authority letter from Durugkar to receive Property Card on his behalf nor it was mentioned in the application submitted by him in the office of appellant that the Property Card was required by Durugkar or that Durugkar had authorized him to receive properly Card on his behalf. It is also admitted that he has also not obtained any authority letter from Mr. Jain, owner of the plot, authorizing him to receive Property Card of his property. 12. According to evidence of complainant, he had visited office of Anti Corruption Bureau. Nagpur on the same day. on which day bribe is alleged to be demanded by appellant, and lodged his report Exh. 12. In his cross-examination complainant has denied that on that day at 12 O'clock in the noon he was present in the office of appellant standing in the queue waiting for his turn to reach to the window which evidence is totally in contrast to the contents of his complaint Exh. 12 wherein he has stated that he was in the office of appellant and was standing in the queue and at about 12.00 O'clock in the noon he could reach to the window to get his work done. Defence had got above portion 'A' from the statement of complainant duly proved from the evidence of PW 6 Dinkar Tankar, I.O. Similarly, complainant has denied to have stated portion mark "B" in his report Exh. 12 with reference to appellant's demanding amount of Rs. 400/- as bribe which portion is got duly proved by PW 6 Dinkar. Investigating Officer. Complainant in his cross-examination has refused to have made payment of any amount towards fees for issuance of Property Card, said portion "C" is further got proved by defence from PW 6 Dinkar Tankar, I.O. Contrary to the charge framed against the appellant, as stated earlier, with reference to demand of Rs. 400/-. complainant has specifically denied that amount of Rs. 400/- was demanded as a bribe. According to the complainant except for the talk between him and appellant to bring remaining amount in the evening on the same day. 400/-. complainant has specifically denied that amount of Rs. 400/- was demanded as a bribe. According to the complainant except for the talk between him and appellant to bring remaining amount in the evening on the same day. no other talk took place between them. In that view of the matter. prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record the exact amount of alleged bribe which also creates sufficient doubt in its case. 13. Evidence of complainant do not inspire confidence even for the reason when in his cross-examination he has stated that the powder which was applied to the currency notes produced by him as bribe amount was not the powder from the same bottle of which he was given demonstration in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau. Even otherwise, according to the case of complainant, as admitted in his cross examination, he was instructed to talk to appellant about his work of issuance of Property Card but according to complainant before he could initiate talk on this subject, appellant enquired him about the receipt and as soon as complainant produced the same, the appellant supplied Property Card to complainant which is at Exh. 15. according to which Motiram Durugkar is shown as owner of the plot. Having considering above evidence of complainant it, therefore, appears that there is absolutely no demand established by prosecution on the part of appellant with reference to bribe money. So also prosecution has not established the exact amount of bribe alleged to have been demanded by the appellant. On the contrary, from the evidence of complainant itself it appears that after his making payment of necessary fees of Rs. 5/-for obtaining Property Card, appellant had issued him receipt thereof and since, according to the complainant, he was urgently in need of said document, on the same day, he visited the office of appellant for collecting the same and appellant on his own produced the Property Card to complainant, even before complainant could request for the same to the appellant. This conduct on the part of appellant goes to show that had he intended to receive any bribe from complainant he would have had not supplied Property Card to complainant before accepting the bribe. No explanation is put forth by prosecution on above material aspect involved in the case. This conduct on the part of appellant goes to show that had he intended to receive any bribe from complainant he would have had not supplied Property Card to complainant before accepting the bribe. No explanation is put forth by prosecution on above material aspect involved in the case. Complainant even otherwise appears to have materially improved his evidence so as to suit the case of prosecution when he had deposed to have stated in his statement recorded by police that appellant by gesture enquired from him whether he has brought the amount and has further stated to have mentioned in his statement that appellant then orally enquired from him if amount is brought. However, he is unable to assign any reason why these facts are not mentioned in his statement. The defence has duly got these omissions proved from the evidence of PW 6 Dinkar Tankar, Investigating Officer, who has recorded statement of complainant. These material omissions when considered further raise doubt in the case of prosecution about demand on part of the appellant. In the fag end of the cross examination, complainant by going a step further has, in fact, admitted that on the day of incident he was not aware whether appellant was authorized to prepare Property Card or not. On this admission when evidence of PW 1. Shriram Kulmethe, Sanctioning Authority, reveals that in fact appellant was not authorized to prepare or to issue Property Card as said document can be issued only on the instructions of his superior Officer Mr. Tembhekar. Complainant has admitted that the Property Card received by him was bearing signature of said Mr. Tembhekar. In that view of the matter also, case of prosecution that appellant while working in the capacity of a Clerk in the office of City Survey No. 1 Sadar, Nagpur had demanded and accepted bribe from complainant does not appear to be convincing to be acted upon. 14. Above evidence of complainant does not inspire confidence in view of the settled legal principle that where witness makes two inconsistent statements in his evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness. 15. 15. In the background of above evidence on record when the evidence of PW 3 Madan Devhare, who has acted as shadow panch, is scrutinized case of prosecution creates further doubt as, according to evidence of this witness, on 2nd of June, 1999 while he was present in the office of Regional Dairy Development, he and copanch Devidas Jagtap were instructed by his Superior official Shri B.L. Yadav to accompany Police official, who had visited their office, to the office of A.C.B. Nagpur and had accordingly visited said office at about 2 to 2.30 p.m. where PW 6 Dinkar, I.O. introduced them to complainant Mirza Beg, while according to complainant as he was not intending to make payment of bribe he directly went to the office of Anti Corruption Burueau, and lodged his report Exh. 12. From the contents of complaint (Exh. 12) as well as evidence of complainant, as discussed above, it has come on record that till 12 noon, on that day, he was in the office of City Survey Sadar, Nagpur. According to further evidence of complainant after his complaint (Exh. 12) was recorded, he was introduced to PW 3 Devhare and Jagtap who enquired from him about the contents of complaint. No explanation is putforth by prosecution as to how the Investigating Officer had fetched both the panchas in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau even before complaint (Exh. 12) came to be lodged by complainant, as according to his complaint (Exh. 12) he was introduced to both the panchas after he lodged report. 16. Further evidence of this independent witness when considered, on the point of incident coupled with that of complainant, it does not inspire confidence, as evidence of these two witnesses do not corroborate with each other on material aspects as according to PW 3 Madan after he visited office of appellant along with complainant, complainant enquired from the appellant if the Property Card is ready to which he replied in affirmative and produced receipt Exh. 11. 11. Appellant then cancelled said receipt by drawing two lines on it and thereafter enquired from complainant if he has brought the remaining amount which was replied by complainant in affirmative and produced two currency notes by removing it from his banian pocket and tendered it to the appellant which he accepted and kept in his right side shirt pocket when he came to be apprehended by two police constables. Above evidence do not find corroboration from the evidence of complainant, as according to complainant, even before he could initiate any talk with the appellant, appellant supplied him Property Card. 17. Even on the aspect of apprehension of appellant, there is no corroboration as, according to complainant, copanch Jagtap apprehended appellant by holding his hands while according to PW 3 Madan, Police Constable caught hold of appellant. Evidence of said panch is contrary to the evidence of complainant when he has stated that the bribe money was kept by complainant in left side of the shirt pocket, while according to panch complainant removed bribe amount from his banian pocket and paid it to the appellant. In fact, as already noted earlier, evidence of complainant is silent on the aspect of demand and acceptance. In the circumstances, above evidence being not corroborative with each other do not inspire confidence. Even otherwise, for the reasons already stated herein above, the case of prosecution itself creates doubt as even according to PW 3 Madan, the panch, as per the contents of complaint (Exh. 12) it was complainant who wanted to purchase Plot No. 249 from one Motiram Durugkar and according to him, the bribe amount was Rs. 200/-which contradicts the evidence of complainant. Evidence of panch is further contrary to the evidence of complainant when he has stated that when they reached to the office of A.C.B., currency notes of Rs. 150/- were lying on table. Similarly, though it is the case of prosecution that at the time of drawing of first panchanama, complainant was instructed to give proposed signal on making payment of bribe, while according to the independent witness no such facts are mentioned in the panchanama about signal which was instructed to be given by complainant on acceptance of bribe by appellant. 18. PW 3 first pancha has even admitted that in the second panchanama (Exh. 18. PW 3 first pancha has even admitted that in the second panchanama (Exh. 24) it is not mentioned that complainant asked appellant whether Property Card is ready to which appellant replied in affirmative and thereafter complainant produced receipt (Exh. 11) to appellant who cancelled the same by drawing two lines on it and enquired from complainant whether he has brought the amount to which complainant replied in affirmative and then tendered Rs. 150/- by removing the same from his banian pocket. According to said witness, above facts are not mentioned in second panchanama though he has stated so to the police. In the light of his evidence, as stated above, there appears to be no satisfactory corroboration to the evidence of complainant on above material aspect of the case. Having considering above evidence, I find it useful to refer to the case of State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma : (2013(4) Crimes 41 (SC)}: [2013 ALL SCR 3051], wherein in para 7 of the judgment, it is observed thus : "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. 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." 19. In view of above settled proposition of law, neither evidence of complainant nor of PW 3 Madan appears to be convincing and reliable to be acted upon, establishing involvement of appellant in the present case since it does not corroborate on material aspect of the prosecution case. Similarly, mere recovery of tainted currency notes itself would not arise any presumption against the appellant nor it is sufficient to prove the offence against the appellant. In that view of the matter, I further find it useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana reported in: AIR 2010 SC 1589 : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1608 (S.C.)]. The Supreme Court in this judgment has held that mere recovery of tainted notes divorced from the evidence in respect of demand and acceptance would not amount to establishing the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, therefore, according to me, in the light of discrepant evidence of complainant and PW 3 Madan in respect of demand and acceptance of amount, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 20. Even otherwise another material point I find it necessary to consider is about explanation of appellant which has no where come on record. According to content of Post Trap Panchanama (Exh. 24), after the trap and recovery of alleged bribe note from the person of appellant, PW 6 Dinkar Tankar, Investigating Officer, obtained explanation of appellant in writing which was accordingly given by him. Similar is evidence of PW 6 Dinkar Tankar that appellant has submitted his written explanation. According to content of Post Trap Panchanama (Exh. 24), after the trap and recovery of alleged bribe note from the person of appellant, PW 6 Dinkar Tankar, Investigating Officer, obtained explanation of appellant in writing which was accordingly given by him. Similar is evidence of PW 6 Dinkar Tankar that appellant has submitted his written explanation. Admittedly, said explanation whatsoever is given by the appellant is not forming part of record nor any steps are taken on behalf of the appellant to bring said document on record. 21. In the background of above evidence. I find it useful to rely upon the case of Bismillakha Salarkha Pathan vs State of Mah. reported in : 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1341 where in similar set of circumstances, as is referred in the post-trap panchanama, that immediately after the trap was sprung, statement of accused was recorded regarding his alleged acceptance of money which was reduced to writing. However, said writing was not found reproduced in the posttrap panchanama nor it was forming part of record. As such it was observed that for the reasons best known to the prosecution said document is not produced before the Trial Court and this circumstance of suppressing the best version given by the appellant being an important circumstance raises a shadow of doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. In the appeal in hand also, the contents of statement whatsoever is given by appellant immediately after the trap is not reproduced in the posttrap panchanama (Exh. 24) nor such explanation is forming part of record though it is the duty of the prosecution to bring entire truth as found before the Court. However, it appears that this vital document since is supporting to the case of appellant is not brought on record as it would have been fatal to the case of prosecution. In the background of above facts, by virtue of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court is entitled to presume that had this document been produced, it would have not favoured the prosecution which had thus, withheld the same. For this purpose, reference can be usefully made to the illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 22. Having considering the above discussed evidence, I find this to be the case wherein the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the following order. For this purpose, reference can be usefully made to the illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 22. Having considering the above discussed evidence, I find this to be the case wherein the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the following order. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 7th of January, 2008 passed by the Special Court, Nagpur in Special Criminal case No. 13 of 2000, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said offences. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, be refunded back to the appellant.